Bibical prohibition against canibalism?

Is it an abomination to eat thy fat uncle? Or, better yet, thy tender young neice?
No plans. Just curious. I promise. I opened a can of Spam, and got to wondering.
Piece, I mean peace, mangeorge

there is no explicit prohibition against eating human flesh. Perhaps it could be construed as violation of the Old Testament kashrut laws since humans or even primates don’t fall under any of the allowed animal categories for consumption (they have to divide the hoof and chew the cud, or something like that). There is also prohibition of eating carrion (“that which dieth of itself”).

Biblical accounts do mention eating of human flesh during famine. In fact, this is one of the curses promised to Israel in Leviticus for disobedience to God - that they will be besieged by the enemy and forced to eat human flesh because of the famine.

Well, both the story of Cain and Abel and the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac can be seen as prohibitions of human sacrifice, which at the time was closely connected to cannibalism (after all, most *animal *sacrifices were actually eaten by the priests). There’s also the commandment against murder.

The dietary restrictions and the separation of man and animal (man was made in his image, after all) seem to be the main thing. There’s also this passage where Jesus goes into his transubstantiation spiel, the listeners are pretty shocked that Jesus appears to be offering up his flesh in some form of cannibalistic ritual;
“52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

In Jeremiah cannibalism seems to be a dire result of forsaking God and incurring his wrath;
“9And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.”

People aren’t kosher, but beyond that, I don’t believe there’s any specific prohibition against eating human flesh. In fact, in certain forms, it is quite common to do so. For example, placenta, which is definitely human flesh, was routinely eaten after a birth, and some people still eat it. It’s full of nutrients, and apparently goes well with fried onions.

However, there are some theological snags which might put potential cannibals off their meals. A knotty theological problem, which generations of thinkers considered, when they weren’t wondering how many angels were dancing on pin-heads, was what happened to cannibals at Judgment Day. According to the Bible, the dead were supposed to be brought back to life, and given back their bodies. But what would happen if their bodies had been eaten by others, and those others (who presumably had lived good lives, apart from their feeding habits) were also resurrected. Since the flesh from one person had become part of another, who would get it?

St. Augustine’s answer was that whoever owned the body part first would get first dibs on it. So, the cannibal loses out.

Well, the nuns told us that “people for dinner” would be resurected the same way as those blown to smitherines by bombs, or consumed (yeah) by fire. I mean, he made your first body, right? Shouldn’t be a problem making anpther.
And people probably aren’t halal either, so a devout muslim won’t eat you either. Hindus are vegetarian, right?
Looks like, so far, only us christians and athiests will survive another Donner Pass happening. That’s cool :cool:, more for me.

Obviously humans aren’t kosher.

And you’d be hard pressed to argue with any honesty that cannibalism is acceptable to a Christian:

It’s impossible to think of any foodstuff whose consumption is more likely to distress others and be considered more evil than human flesh.

Unless you seriously want to argue that eating people won’t distress anybody and that it won’t be considered evil by 99% of humanity then the answer seems quite clear: Yes Virginia, there is a biblical prohibition against cannibalism.

I suppose in theory if a Christian were living amongst people that didn’t consider cannibalism to be distressing and she could be absolutely certain that nobody in the outside world would ever find out, then it would be tolerable. But that;s pretty improbable.

Cite. I would like to see this evidence that eating the placenta was common and routine amongst any Christian group at any time. I’ll accept as little as 1 in 100 births as common, and 1 in 10 as routine, which is pretty generous.

Which makes no sense at all, and never has.
As Shakespeare noted, people decompose, the worms feed fish, the fish feed other people. Thus a king makes a beggar fat. There’s nothing new about our understanding that human bodies are made of recycled matter from other people. Every living person consists of large amounts of deceased people. Cannibalism doesn’t add any more to the problem.

If philosophers were arguing about this it was, as with the angels on a pin, an academic exercise, not a knotty theological problem.

I cannot find where Romans 14 posted in this thread, but I bet there’s a lot more to this prohibition than just this outtake.

Google is your friend.

Read it yourself instead of making presuppositions. The whole chapter is about not doing things that will distress another believer, even if you think it is technically okay. The example given is eating.

I’m sorry if I seem rude, but I consider it intellectually dishonest for someone to say “That’s probably not true” without checking the available research for himself.

This isn’t the Wild Assed Guess forum. Either you have the data, or you don’t.

First, the quote in Blake’s post says “Originally Posted by Romans 14”. I still can’t find Romans 14’s quoted original post. :confused:
And there was no presupposition in my reply. There was a lot more than just what was quoted in Blake’s post. As you so well quoted. You proved the truth in my post. And I certainly did not state that anything was not true.
You are rude.
Hey, what’s this?
“Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another”
Well, I’ll be dipped!

Is this a joke, or are you genuinely unaware that Romans is a book in the Christian scriptures, and Romans 14 is the 14th chapter in that book?

I find it hard to believe that you are this ignorant, particularly considering the link that BigT provided.

WTF? I quoted the relevant passages for the point I was trying to make. Of course there is more to it. It’s called “The Entire Fricken Bible”.

Romans 14 never posted in this thread, originally or not.
“Of course there is more to it”
That’s what I said, in my original reply.
Are you two (Blake & BigT) True Believers? You’re both seeing what you want to see.
When I have time, I may read all that bible stuff and see where it specifically prohibits the eating of human meat.
If you have any more nastiness to add, start a new thread in GD. I won’t follow, but that move will return some civility to this thread.

Catholics eat a little bit o Jesus at every service, or so they claim. So at the very least, deep fried Jesus should be ok.

What on earth are you going on about?

Blake and BigT were a little confused about something I had posted. That’s all, no biggee.
Sorry for the distraction. :wink:

Tried some, went back to Twinkies.

My thought exactly. WTF?:confused:

Kyla asked a question.
Please, read the first quote in post #7

But…Romans isn’t a poster, it’s a book of the New Testament.

Well, between that and “Thou shalt not kill”, the opportunities for acceptable cannibalism will be few: I suppose accident victims would be OK, and possibly victims of other people’s murders/wars, but you couldn’t really build a lifestyle relying on that, without beginning to at least a little bit encouraging the killer. And you could possibly argue than planning to cannibalize accident victims would be in most situations partially encouraging accidents and therefore would be Not OK.

And of course accident vicitims are extremely unlikely to have been kosher slaughtered, so even if you decided humans were kosher animals, the meat from accident vicitims wouldn’t be.