Don't read if you're eating!

In the film "Alive" the passengers that survived had to eat the dead passengers to survive. :-o Is this wrong?

During the destruction of Jerusalem as recorded by Josephus there are accounts of starvation being so great that the Zealots would move in and reach into the peoples mouths to pull food out before the person who had been hiding it could swallow it. They hid food in any where they could. ( as an interjection they sold dung by weight for food in the O.T.) The Romans taunted the people outside the city by putting bushels of food on the ground on the outside part of the walls. One woman in a horrific state of delusion from hunger actually said something to her child like this "be food for me" and proceeded to cook and eat a portion. The zealots smelled something cooking and came in to see what it was..... even they were HORRIFIED as worn and hardened as they were at the sight they saw as they dipped the kettle. Jesus foretold of it in Matthew 24. To answer your question was it wrong? Who can tell UNDER SUCH HORRIBLE circumstances? Otherwise it would be of a demonic wickedness the likes of which are reserved for the most darkened and depraved of reprobate souls. When you consider Jesus saying the great tribulation will be such as the world has not seen and we know what history has already witnessed.... I must ask... what are we willing to do to have REVIVAL to avoid such unimaginable suffering and madness?God Bless and best regards in Christ,-Robert

"Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us. He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure; Psalm 2:1-5Nothing is new under the sun.In Christ Jeff

Jeff:Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the significance of your biblical quote in the context of the ethical discussion here. I have got a friendly advice for you: consider expounding on the verses you cite in your posts? ("The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple."-Ps. 119:130) I guess I am one of the "simple", you will have to open up God's word more in order to enlighten me. :)Back to the original question. I really don't know. I think eating human flesh is a horrible idea to most civilised culture. For instance, Chinese considers human beings as distinct from animals, and eating your own kind would definitely be considered a beastly behaviour.However, like the movie cited, these unusual circumstances did arise in history. When survival becomes the issue, civility is not at the top of the agenda.During the Second World War in China, some Chinese families were in extreme starvation to a point where they seriously considered eating human flesh. Families would exchange their children for this purpose (it's easier killing and eating other's children than your own). It tells you how extreme the conditions were.Of course, it is wrong. But who are we to judge? We should be thankful that God had not put us in similar dilemma. Indeed, He gave us his own son.

Sorry Agent001, I missed the first post some how and just read the second. My quote was based on the outcome of man's striving against God, and the results of that striving. And then I thought of the great tribulation. How men will still deny God. So this was the Scripture that came to mind.In terms of the thread, I am clueless in regards to that plane crash or the Donner party etc. I can only imagine that maybe some cried out to God.Sorry Jeff

Greg, You are on the right track here. As Christians, we would do things differently than those who do not have the Lord living in them.I am sure the Lord would take care of this- even if that meant no food.

38And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.8"If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.I realize these verses don't say "Thou shalt not eat man flesh." What I don't understand, however, is why a Christian would be so worried about prolonging his life that he would stoop to such disgusting behavior. I know you're going to tell me that I've never starved before and I might change my mind. I'd like to think, however, that I've prepared myself for death and am ready to go any time. If that means laying down and folding my hands in prayer for days while starving to death so be it. I'd rather let somebody bludgeon me and eat me than vice versa. I won't miss this world a bit. Christ called us to be ready to die whether it be beheading or upside-down crucifixion. I'd hope that when you're plane is going down and one parachute is missing you'll stay behind for the sake of the lost.

See my previous post for the context.I do not think the morality of eating human flesh is in question here! I cannot conceive of any human being let alone Christian doing such a detestable act at all.However, we are all humans, weak and frail. In extreme conditions like wars, poverty and starvation, humans do commit extreme acts. This is true of Christians too.It is easy for some well-fed American Christian sitting comfortably in his room eating his favorite snack to say how we should rely upon God's provision! (I can do that too... and preach ten sermons on it) However, you just might be the first one to fall when a severe situation arises.We have all heard about the bravery of many Chinese Christians risking their lives for God and for their faith. But the reality is, there are a lot more who had succumbed to the temptation of wavering in their faith--many of them well-known Bible teachers and preachers, who were no doubt genuine and fervent Christians. But even they may lapse into moments of weakness under the severe pressure from the Communists. (I thank God, who eventually restored many of them by reminding them of their first love; some Christians are not as forgiving).Even the apostle Peter in his moment of weakness denied the Lord three times. His story proved that it is easy to say, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." (Matt 26:35) But to do it when the moment calls for it is quite another story.

I agree, but would also like to point out that Peter's weak moment was pre-Spirit filling. After Pentecost he was ready to be crucified upside-down with no regrets. Most people expect that God will have mercy on actions that are committed in total complete weakness. This is why many question the teaching of suicide always being a ticket to hell. I think if I get into a jam like that I might just trust God to have the same mercy on my suicide that I'd expect Him to have on my murder. If you're gonna kill maybe it is best that it be yourself.

yes we are agreed on the biblical standard and morality of the issue of cannabilism.I don't think anyone has given me any biblical evidence of non-cannabilism.What is wrong with it?Why is it different to eating an animal?The body will rot in the ground or be cremated, will it not?Please note I am talking about eating a person who has died of 'natural' causes, i.e. someone hasn't just killed them.

I waited to see when this thread would reach the true essense of what was being asked. The danger in making ANY exception to a law is that the EXCEPTION revises the law and all expect the same priviledge as the one in the extreme situation. So you ask... what is that law? Cannibalism is rejected on the same grounds as Transubstantiation. It is not far from vampirism. Cannibalism has always been contrary to the law God has written on our hearts and to partake of such is to thrust God from the mind and beg reprobation (Romans 1). It also finds itself in the category that Paul used for such cases that may find themselves wildly beyond realm of reasonable human beings saying "And if there be any other thing that is CONTRARY TO SOUND DOCTRINE" (I Timothy 1:10). In what greater measure could a person "Defile themself with mankind?" Our body is sown in CORRUPTION... that means in some way they are corrupted with sin itself. Otherwise we would not need to be resurrected with a "spiritual" body. I am not suggesting gnostic and dualistic views of "the flesh" I am simply pointing to the fullness of the meaning of the Greek word SARX. We must put off this our tabernacle- because there is some element of sin that it is tainted therewith after the fall- though it was created to be good in the beginning. Otherwise the resurrection is nonsensical. II Kings 6:24-30 reports the disgust of the King of Israel hearing that a woman had eaten her own child under great distress in agreement with another woman who now refused to cook and share hers. The king RENT his clothes- which is a knee jerk reaction to utter vexation of soul. Underneath his clothes he was wearing sackcloth which is another sign of extreme distress and humility before God and the prelude to going before God with great humbleness of mind to beg for mercy (sackloth & ashes). Cannibalism is a pagan practice and gross violation of the 1st commandment. Pagan's believed that by eating a dead person they could acquire the characteristics of that person depending on the body part that was eaten. Why do you think the Pharisees (perushim) accused Jesus of blasphemy? One reason is that He said in metaphors "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood." Obviously He did not mean to infer paganism on the people and I believe the Pharisees knew this-- they saw Him as a threat to their authority that they had with the people (another issue). LAWS AGAINST these pagan rituals are among the FEW things that were placed upon believers at the FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL MEETING chaired by James the half brother of our Lord - the first president of the Church at Jerusalem. They were Gentiles (goyim) and were in the midst of this madness and could be tempted to participate. The 613 laws that the Jew was raised to believe strictly steered a person from such conduct by forbidding much lesser forms of meat (no cloven hoof, etc,). The Gentiles were pagans who had no law but the law of conscience and the laws upon their hearts which Paul (Shaul) wrote that they rejected and snuffed out in Romans 1 and 2. Enough said. Consider his ruling:Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.Old Testament:Zechariah 9:6,7 And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. And I will take away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth: but he that remaineth, even he, shall be for our God, and he shall be as a governor in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite. "Abominations between their teeth?" If God so detested these things in the OT and He does not change... surely we have not so yielded to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons as to think that the cleansing of every creature for food extends to human flesh (I Timothy 4:4)? What madness and searing of the conscience would yield such a doctrine? God Bless and Brotherly Love in Christ,

RobertW, I am assuming the last post was directed to me, if it was not then please tell me.The danger in making ANY exception to a law is that the EXCEPTION revises the law and all expect the same priviledge as the one in the extreme situation.Which exception am I making?Cannibalism is rejected on the same grounds as Transubstantiation.Which grounds are these and how are they connected?It also finds itself in the category that Paul used for such cases that may find themselves wildly beyond realm of reasonable human beings saying "And if there be any other thing that is CONTRARY TO SOUND DOCTRINE" (I Timothy 1:10).Which doctrine are you refering to?II Kings 6:24-30 reports the disgust of the King of Israel hearing that a woman had eaten her own child under great distress in agreement with another woman who now refused to cook and share hers.You are getting confused, these women were mudering their sons so to eat them, what I am talking about is eating a human who has died of 'natural' causes, e.g. like the plane crash in 'Alive'.Pagan's believed that by eating a dead person they could acquire the characteristics of that person depending on the body part that was eaten.Just because pagans believe something about a certain action that does not make that action wrong, e.g. if a pagan thinks that when a fire is lit the god of fire gives that person strength, this does not make lighting fires wrong.Why do you think the Pharisees (perushim) accused Jesus of blasphemy? One reason is that He said in metaphors "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood."Unless I'm mistaken, the bible does not say that the pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy for saying this.In regards to your other comments about meat, are you a vegetarian? and if so for what reason?

The fact that this is even being debated strikes me as a sure sign of depravity the likes of which are paralleled only by having to defend the sanctity of marriage as being only between a male and female. If your desire is to debate for the love of polemic- I'm not really interested. If you desire to know truth- God Himself teaches you that this is wrong!? No? Who am I to add to what He has already written on your heart? If you are looking for a "Thou Shalt Not Eat People" you will not find it; but that does not excuse the behavior. The "LAW" and "Sound Doctrine" I'm referring to is the unwritten common sense that only this generation seems to want to challenge. To make an exception in saying that it is OK to eat people if you are hungry enough leaves the door open to people eating people if they are hungry, then craving man's flesh, etc. What madness is this? Have you not read in Daniel 7:25 "And he shall think to change times and laws"? Everything is up for grabs with the Spirit of Antichrist that exists today and to even crack the door in this matter sets us up for a flood of wickedness. Cannibalism is rejected on the same grounds as Transubstantiation.You ask:Which grounds are these and how are they connected? I already answered this to a good degree; however the connection is clear. Eating man flesh and drinking man's blood? Oh the people who have laid down their lives during the counter reformation for the belief that this (transubstantiation) was heresy (See John Fox and the Martyr's Mirror, etc.).True the women did murder and eat their children because of the great famine in Samaria; however, the logic of the woman I mention in my first post from the destruction of Jerusalem was that "the child was dying anyway?" Why should we both die? This is EXTREME starvation at its worst. The people are literally out of their mind with hunger. As for the Pharisee's- I concur that there may be no exact instance when they called his remark blasphemy; but rather, the whole of His teachings- which included that. No need to debate that- he was crucified? Many of his disciples remarked in John 6:53 that it was a HARD saying and many (not the 12) stopped following him over the remark. No I am not a vegitarian and nor am I a cannibal. Consider I Corinthians 15:38,39...But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There is a distinction between the flesh of animals and that of man. Scripture does not lump them together and it would be demonic to teach the lawfulness of cannibalism. The only hope for such a thing is in the case when David ate the shewbread when he was in need that was not lawful for him to eat. He never again took occasion to roll into the Holy Place and eat shewbread thereafter. It was an isolated case. Such would be the case in SEVERE famine. However, to open the door and begin suggesting that scripture allows for it is to open a flood of people wanting their right to cannibalize. Best Regards in Christ,

Nasher and others:I never thought even the immorality of cannibalism is in dispute among Christians *sigh*. So here are the direct references to cannibalism in Scripture taken from Nave's Topical Bible: ** Leviticus 26:29** Deuteronomy 28:53-57** 2 Kings 6:28,29** Jeremiah 19:9** Lamentations 2:20; 4:10** Ezekiel 5:10My observations:Almost all references--Ezekiel 5:10, Lamentations 2:20, Jeremiah 19:9, Deuteronomy 28:53-57 and Leviticus 26:29--concerns the eating of children's or each other's flesh as a result of the punishment of the Lord. The image is that of being under siege by the enemies; extreme starvation thus led inevitably to cannibalism.The rhetoric question in Lamentations 2:20 makes it clear that cannibalistic practices are considered negative, full of terror and horror.Note however, that it is assumed in scripture that being sieged and in starvation will definitely lead to the horrible consequence of cannibalism. It is human nature to try to survive by all possible means.I want to stress that Christian ethics is not always clear-cut in practice. We live in an imperfect world which often presents to us options that all have some evil in it.

I agree. The thought I had at lunch (no pun intended) that I "bounced off" my brother brought back a response that I think that is worth considering. To what extent do human beings love life? Paul said once "I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better." Not that we are fatalistic in our thinking; but to what extent will a person go to save their life in a tribulation type situation. Would they also deny Christ? On the other hand Richard Wurmbrand in his book "Tortured for Christ" shows the great love that can come from severe persecution both for the Lord and our fellow believers.God Bless,-Robert

The fact that this is even being debated strikes me as a sure sign of depravity the likes of which are paralleled only by having to defend the sanctity of marriage as being only between a male and female.What are you saying, that I am depraved?If you desire to know truth- God Himself teaches you that this is wrong!? No? Who am I to add to what He has already written on your heart?God has not revealed to me that it is wrong.The "LAW" and "Sound Doctrine" I'm referring to is the unwritten common sense that only this generation seems to want to challenge.I prefer to trust in the Lord and lean not on my own understanding.To make an exception in saying that it is OK to eat people if you are hungry enough leaves the door open to people eating people if they are hungry, then craving man's flesh, etc. What madness is this?What I am referring to is a survival situation, like a plane crash etc., not if Tesco's run out of food for a while.Eating man flesh and drinking man's blood?The difference here is that one is done in the belief that red wine will supernaturally turn into Christ's blood, the other is eating a man's flesh who has died of 'natural' causes.however, the logic of the woman I mention in my first post from the destruction of Jerusalem was that "the child was dying anyway?" Why should we both die?True they were both dying and if I was the parent I would give my life for the child, not the other way round.As for the Pharisee's- I concur that there may be no exact instance when they called his remark blasphemy; but rather, the whole of His teachings- which included that.The whole of Christ's teachings were not all considered blasphemy.There is a distinction between the flesh of animals and that of man.You are paraphrasing, the verse says there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. Four things are mentioned here.However, to open the door and begin suggesting that scripture allows for it is to open a flood of people wanting their right to cannibalize.I don't believe I have ever suggested that scripture allows for it, rather I have asked the question does scripture prohibit it.

Nasher,It seems to me you are a little irritated. Calm down. We are one family though we may disagree. :)See my previous post for the relevant scriptural verses on cannibalism. Let me know what you think.S.