Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[Wharton]

You are truly mistaken.The holy scriptures never makes Jesus and Jehovah equal.One is the giver of authority to the other.Jesus always says it is the Father that gives and the Father that commands.Jesus was sent.

John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 8:28
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 12:49
For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.

John 12:50
I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."


WHOS WILL DOES IT SAY?

Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

The Almighty God Jehovah does not fall down to his face and pray to a GOD.Jehovah is God the Almighty,not Jesus.It was Jesus who fell and prayed to his Father Jehovah.Jesus says he is doing Gods will.Jesus was even asking God permission to remove the cup,meaning the task at hand,because the time was growing near and he was scared.

So you can clearly see in scripture that it is Jehovah God that commands and instructs.Jesus is His representative.

All that you've posted above are just examples of the Jewish teaching method. The Father is the ultimate teacher with authority of his doctrine. Jesus learns from the Father and becomes the Father's teacher with authority AKA The Word and is sent forth to preach by the Father. Jesus is the teacher with authority of the apostles and the 11 are sent forth to preach by Jesus. The apostles train their replacements and send them forth to preach.

It's a simple process. It doesn't imply inferiority.

 

[Wharton]

Begotten/beget verb1 literary he begat a son: father, sire, have, bring into the world, give life to, bring into being, spawn.

2 violence begets violence: cause, give rise to, lead to, result in, bring about, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, occasion, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, kindle, trigger, spark off, touch off, stir up, whip up, induce, inspire, promote; literary enkindle.

Under 1) Correct. To father, sire etc. The result is a being of the same NATURE as the begettor.
Under 2) Correct. Violence begets violence. It begets something of the same NATURE.

Jesus is of the same NATURE as the Father via begetting.

 

[Wharton]

Paul referred to Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son” (Heb 11:17), even though Abraham also fathered Ishmael by Hagar as well as several sons by Keturah. (Ge 16:15; 25:1, 2; 1Ch 1:28, 32) God’s covenant, however, was established only through Isaac, Abraham’s only son by God’s promise, as well as the only son of Sarah. (Ge 17:16-19) Furthermore, at the time Abraham offered up Isaac, he was the only son in his father’s household. No sons had yet been born to Keturah, and Ishmael had been gone for some 20 years—no doubt was married and head of his own household.—Ge 22:2.

And all of those begotten sons were of the same nature/substance; human.

 

[Nada]

WHAT DOES YOUR NWT SAY?

I'll repeat it for you since you don't want to see it..

"No; but I say that what the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God;+ and I do not want you to become sharers with the demons.+ 21 You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah* and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of “the table of Jehovah”*+ and the table of demons."

The cup of Christ is the cup of Jehovah. Christ is God. It's right there in front of you in the NWT. Reason away.

Brother.....once again,you are mistaken.You are taken some things literal when it is obviously a symbolic reference.
It is saying that one can not serve two masters.One can not drink from the cup of Jehovah and from the cup of demons.This means you can not be serving God, and participating in spiritism, or any other demonic practices.The word cup in this passage represents Gods arrangement.His word.His commands.His ways.The cup of demons would be sorcery,spiritism,witchcraft,astrology,mediums,tarot card reading,horoscopes,idol worship etc..

The holy scriptures says the cup of Jehovah,not Jesus.Now if we go to the last supper,Matthew 26:27,it says this,27 And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying:"

So here in this passage we have a literal cup.Jesus literally passed a cup of wine.Also,this arrangement between Jesus and the disciples is what God commands.Jehovah is the chief agent in charge.So Jehovah's arrangement and ways would be the cup a follower drinks from symbolically.



The Lord’s Evening Meal is likewise a communion meal, because there is a sharing together. Jehovah God is involved as the Author of the arrangement, Jesus Christ is the ransom sacrifice, and his spiritual brothers eat the emblems as joint participants. Their eating at “the table of Jehovah” would signify that they are at peace with Jehovah. (1Co 10:21) In fact, communion offerings were sometimes called “peace offerings.”—Le 3:1, ftn.


1 Cor. 10:21: “You cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons.” (Those who want Jehovah’s friendship and protection must break off all participation in spiritistic meetings. In harmony with the example recorded at Acts 19:19, it is also important to destroy or properly dispose of all objects in one’s possession that relate to spiritism.)


http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200270046/160/4



At Which Table Are You Feeding?

“You cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons.”—1 CORINTHIANS 10:21.

2 Paul’s words remind us of the communion sacrifices that the ancient Israelites offered under Jehovah’s Law. The altar of God was called a table, and the one bringing the animal to be sacrificed was said to have communion with Jehovah and with the priests. How? First, Jehovah shared in the sacrifice because the blood was sprinkled upon his altar and the fat was consumed by flames underneath. Second, the priest shared in that he (and his family) ate the roasted breast and right leg of the animal sacrificed. And third, the offerer shared by eating the rest of it. (Leviticus 7:11-36) Today, partaking of the table of Jehovah means that we give him the kind of worship that he requires, as exemplified by Jesus and his apostles. To do this, we must feed spiritually on what Jehovah provides through his Word and organization. The Israelites, who enjoyed special communion with Jehovah at his table, were forbidden to offer sacrifices to demons at their table. Spiritual Israelites and their “other sheep” companions are under the same divine prohibition.—John 10:16.

3 How could one become guilty of partaking of the table of demons in our day? By serving the interests of anything opposed to Jehovah. The table of demons includes all demonic propaganda, which is designed to mislead and to turn us away from Jehovah. Who would want to feed his heart and mind on such poison? True Christians refuse to share in the sacrifices that most people today offer to the gods of war and riches.—Matthew 6:24.
WOL

 

[Nada]

All that you've posted above are just examples of the Jewish teaching method. The Father is the ultimate teacher with authority of his doctrine. Jesus learns from the Father and becomes the Father's teacher with authority AKA The Word and is sent forth to preach by the Father. Jesus is the teacher with authority of the apostles and the 11 are sent forth to preach by Jesus. The apostles train their replacements and send them forth to preach.

It's a simple process. It doesn't imply inferiority.

Interesting that you chose this to point out to me.Especially the last part.They did go out and preach.

Acts 20:20,21.20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house.21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
New International Version (NIV)

So paul and the others were going out preaching house to house.That sounds really familiar.Who goes house to house preaching to all peoples of the earth?

 

[Nada]

And all of those begotten sons were of the same nature/substance; human.

You still can not see.......

 

[Wharton]

Interesting that you chose this to point out to me.Especially the last part.They did go out and preach.

Acts 20:20,21.20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house.21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
New International Version (NIV)

So paul and the others were going out preaching house to house.That sounds really familiar.Who goes house to house preaching to all peoples of the earth?

You have no link to the teaching method used by the Father, Jesus and the apostles so you are neither fit to teach or lead as was Jesus, Paul and the apostles.

Sorry.

 

[Nada]

Under 1) Correct. To father, sire etc. The result is a being of the same NATURE as the begettor.
Under 2) Correct. Violence begets violence. It begets something of the same NATURE.

Jesus is of the same NATURE as the Father via begetting.

Nope....

 

[Wharton]

You still can not see.......

Begotten is begotten. It is not created.

 

[Nada]

You have no link to the teaching method used by the Father, Jesus and the apostles so you are neither fit to teach or lead as was Jesus, Paul and the apostles.

Sorry.

No need to apologize.It is obvious you have been incorrect more than once, and have reduced yourself to an arrogant sarcastic individual.You judge and think you are correct.Your speech speaks volumes about your true character.It is not the word of God you wish to speak of.You want to satisfy your own ego.Your pride blinds you from seeing the truth of matters.It is a waste of both of our time by continuing this debate.I can see this,you on the other hand will subject yourself to immature tactics ,and probably want the last word.So go ahead.....please yourself with your words.Have a great day!

 

[NulliuSINverba]

NulliuSinVerba,
It is true that the eating of human flesh is not addressed in the Holy Scriptures.

Thank you for conceding that point.

If that's true, doesn't it follow that anyone seeking to appeal to Divine Revelation to conclude that cannibalism is Objectively Immoral is:

A.) ... doing so by inference?
B.) ... making it up as they go along?
C.) ... resorting to both A and B.

There are some things that are so very wrong that a law is not necessary to a follower of God or Christ, 1Tim 1:5-11.

1.) That citation from Paul's letter to Timothy appears to deal with Paul's justification for his command to Timothy to remain in Ephesus. Could you please explain how it is relevant to the Bible's conspicuous silence regarding cannibalism?

2.) You've indicated that there are "things" (plural) that are so wrong that the Bible isn't required to contain prohibitions against them. Aside from cannibalism, would you care to name a few more examples?

We have several scriptures about not eating blood of any creature, to a reasonable person this would certainly apply to a human, Gen 9:3,4, Deut 12:23-25, Lev 17:10-14, Acts 15:20,29.

We also have scriptures that indicate that all food is clean. So what?

Assuming that your scriptures trump all the others we might cite, does it follow that a good Christian would be obliged to declare that the consumption of black (read: blood) pudding is immoral?

Many people believe in, what is called, Innateness Hypothesis, which means that we all have, at least the rudiments of a co--

Pardon the interruption, but your assertion appears to be erroneous:

"The innateness hypothesis is a linguistic theory of language acquisition which holds that at least some knowledge about language exists in humans at birth." ~ wikipedia

This is a hypothesis that was formulated by Noam Chomsky. If you'd like to appeal to Noam Chomsky's work in linguistics to support your apparent assertion that cannibalism is so wrong that the Bible didn't need to bother with condemning it (or even label it as a sin), feel free to do so. However, you'll be obliged to explain how all that actually works.

... we all have, at least the rudiments of a conscience. This would exclude the eating of human flesh, by another human, Matt 7:12.

Appealing to innate human conscience is a far cry from appealing to divine revelation. The Bible also describes God formulating plans which would result in human beings being forced to resort to cannibalism. Does God plan in advance to make Objective Immorality unavoidable? If that's true, why doesn't God ever decide to similarly employ homosexuality as an instrument of punishment?

 

[Wharton]

The Lord’s Evening Meal is likewise a communion meal, because there is a sharing together. Jehovah God is involved as the Author of the arrangement, Jesus Christ is the ransom sacrifice, and his spiritual brothers eat the emblems as joint participants. Their eating at “the table of Jehovah” would signify that they are at peace with Jehovah. (1Co 10:21) In fact, communion offerings were sometimes called “peace offerings.”—Le 3:1, ftn.

Nice tap dance on the cups from the same chapter of Paul. The cups belong to Christ, not Jehovah. The NWT changed Lord to Jehovah so as not to have a direct link to Jesus being God. So they replaced Lord with Jehovah to confuse your flock.

BTW, your Jehovah Witness info above is wrong. Jehovah was not the author of the arrangement. Jesus was. He was the one who instructed the apostles in scripture to "make ready the Passover." You need to stop placing ideas that are not in scripture. Jesus is also High Priest who offers the sacrifice and is the sacrifice at the .

Nope....

So you are not of the same nature as your father? What are you then?

 

[Wharton]

No need to apologize.It is obvious you have been incorrect more than once, and have reduced yourself to an arrogant sarcastic individual.You judge and think you are correct.Your speech speaks volumes about your true character.It is not the word of God you wish to speak of.You want to satisfy your own ego.Your pride blinds you from seeing the truth of matters.It is a waste of both of our time by continuing this debate.I can see this,you on the other hand will subject yourself to immature tactics ,and probably want the last word.So go ahead.....please yourself with your words.Have a great day!

No problem. I've been through the JW condescending 'diss' before. It matters not.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Again, people have said it countless times, but this is not how kosher rules work.

"Kosher" is not about restrictions, it is about allowances. Everything is restricted from being eaten, except that which is allowed.

"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

That would have been Jesus talking. Allegedly.

These digressions into kosher restrictions are a rather banal evasion. I'm talking about the Bible in its entirety.

The bible does NOT list off things that are forbidden from being eaten, but rather the bible lists the things that are okay to eat.

So if the scriptures neglect to list human breast milk as "okay to eat" ... it's not permitted, correct?

Since the standards of kosher work this way, it is not even on us to prove that humans violate a law of being kosher, it is on you to prove that laws qualify humans as being kosher.

"The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason." ~ Judaism 101

"Because X says so?" This is how objective morality is ascertained? Seriously?

You seem to think it is the opposite. You seem to think that if it is not mentioned, it is, by default, "kosher", but again, that's not how that works. Deal with it.

OK. Let's play by your rules. Please cite the scripture that specifically confirms that human breast milk is permitted for human consumption. Thanks.

And, of course, you've yet to get around the specific slaughter requirements. If the meat isn't slaughtered correctly, it isn't kosher anyways.

So the actual meat matters less than the method whereby it's slaughtered? Is this "objective" morality ... or divinely revealed anal retentiveness?

The bible calls for death in certain cases

Stoning, for example.

but the method of death is never the quick, smooth, throat-slitting motion with a knife required for kosher meat. You can't kill a human by biblic law in a way that is kosher.

Are you asserting that a human's throat cannot be cut in a "quick, smooth" motion? How do you suppose Abraham would have slit Issac's throat if the god of the Old Testament hadn't stopped him (see: "Punk'd" by God) at the last second? Are you suggesting that Abraham would have killed his son at God's command in the most painful method possible ... or the most humane way?

Clearly, Abraham was ready to slaughter his own son at God's Command. I suppose that if God had commanded him to devour Issac to demonstrate his piety, that would have been peachy as far as Divinely Revealed Objective Morality goes, right?

 

[Salek Atesh]

"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

That would have been Jesus talking. Allegedly.

These digressions into kosher restrictions are a rather banal evasion. I'm talking about the Bible in its entirety.

Yep. You could argue that the bible condemns cannibalism, and then later repeals those condemnations and makes it permissible based on the new testament.

But I am talking about the whole of the bible. If you had said "Why does the bible allow cannibalism?" that'd be one thing, but since it is "Why doesn't the bible condemn cannibalism?" the OP is false. It does condemn it, regardless if it backpedals later.

So if the scriptures neglect to list human breast milk as "okay to eat" ... it's not permitted, correct?

Lol!! I love the way you'll use one argument then turn on it if it doesn't suit you!! XD You were the one a short while ago talking about how kosher breast milk meant kosher human meat!!

But it looks like you're right, the bit about breastmilk being kosher might not be old testament sourced.

But of course that just makes your earlier comments about it making human meat okay to eat more ill-informed.

"The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason."

~ Judaism 101

"Because X says so?" This is how objective morality is ascertained? Seriously?

Not a Jew, don't care about a random link's assertation about Jewish morality. Not relevant to me or this discourse.

OK. Let's play by your rules. Please cite the scripture that specifically confirms that human breast milk is permitted for human consumption. Thanks.

Perhaps it is not kosher, according to the bible, as I can't find it with some google-fu. But this is not about whether breast milk is kosher (which you were using as proof the meat was kosher, lol, so that idea's now dead, eh?) Find me human meat being allowed in the kosher laws now, and cite it.

So the actual meat matters less than the method whereby it's slaughtered?

Is this "objective" morality ... or divinely revealed anal retentiveness?

Both matter equally. I'm not Jewish so I don't care whether you consider it morality or anal retentiveness, feel free to declare it either. The point is in Jewish law it matters.

A human can be humanely slaughtered, theoretically. Give me an instance where the bible calls for the death of a person in such a manner, and perhaps you could find your slaughter loophole. Most of the mandated deaths I know of call for stoning, which would render the meat impure assuming it was pure to begin with.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Yep. You could argue that the bible condemns cannibalism, and then later repeals those condemnations and makes it permissible based on the new testament.

Except that at no time am I arguing that the Bible condemns cannibalism. Because it doesn't. As you've ably demonstrated, one is is obliged to appeal to arcane Old Testament dietary regulations to even get within screaming distance.

But I am talking about the whole of the bible. If you had said "Why does the bible allow cannibalism?" that'd be one thing, but since it is "Why doesn't the bible condemn cannibalism?" the OP is false. It does condemn it, regardless if it backpedals later.

Please cite the chapter and verse where the Bible condemns cannibalism. Thanks.

You were the one a short while ago talking about how kosher breast milk meant kosher human meat!!

No, I was not. I was merely pointing to existing verbiage in an attempt to draw a possible conclusion on a question where the scriptures appear to be notoriously mum. If it seems silly to have to do so, it isn't my problem. Silliness is what one should expect when basing claims of objective morality on divine revelation.

Remember: I am firmly of the opinion that cannibalism is truly evil. However, I don't need to appeal to Bronze Age scriptures to reach that conclusion.

But it looks like you're right, the bit about breastmilk being kosher might not be old testament sourced.

Please. By no means should you let that discourage you while you pore over the OT searching for some shred of evidence that human breast milk is kosher.

Perhaps it is not kosher, according to the bible, as I can't find it with some google-fu.

Can you feel this argument slipping through your fingers yet?

But this is not about whether breast milk is kosher (which you were using as proof the meat was kosher, lol, so that idea's now dead, eh?) Find me human meat being allowed in the kosher laws now, and cite it.

You've already insisted that unless X is listed in the scriptures as specifically permitted, it isn't kosher. So you've inadvertently "proven" that breastfeeding is objectively immoral based on divine revelation.

I see no reason to pursue this, but since you've insisted ... I will point to a verse where cannibalism is clearly God's objective:

"I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them." ~ Jeremiah 19:9

Clearly, God intended for humans to resort to cannibalism in this scenario. The act of devouring human flesh isn't even described as an evil act in this context! It's just The Will Of Yahweh® that people should do it.

Or are you arguing that when God reveals his will via scripture that it isn't Divine Revelation?

I'm not Jewish so I don't care whether you consider it morality or anal retentiveness, feel free to declare it either. The point is in Jewish law it matters.

The actual point is that Jewish Law® only partially informs the Christian Bible. The entire kosher-related digression has been nothing more than a desperate tangent pursued by adherents in an attempt to salvage the entire Objective-Morality-Via-Divine-Revelation claim.

A human can be humanely slaughtered, theoretically.

May I opine that such a barbarism is something that only a theist could say with a straight face?

Give me an instance where the bible calls for the death of a person in such a manner, and perhaps you could find your slaughter loophole.

"[God] said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." ~ Genesis 22:2

Next frivolous objection?

Most of the mandated deaths I know of call for stoning, which would render the meat impure assuming it was pure to begin with.

Don't even get me started on whether or not stoning people is "Objectively Moral" or not. That's a whole 'nother thread.

 

[Skwim]

Loving it​