Cannibalism

Israel

Senior Member
I barely have an idea of what you tried to express in the first post. I'm sure you were trying to tell me something. I coudn't figure out what it was and I try VERY hard. Many others have said the same. I will understand what you're trying to say better if you say it in a conversational way. If your goal isn't conversation then carry on doing your "art". If that's how you talk to everyone you meet on the street then......I don't know what to say.

The second post is plain(er) English. I understood it much better. All I know is that if the bank teller asks me if I want large or small bills and I reply "Blood is the rose of mysterious union" that we will have a poor exchange.

And Peterson is right.
I don't know what to say.
an excellent place to start...and stay.
 
WHY!!!!!?????

Why do you have to try so hard to be cryptic? Remember Jordan Peterson saying "If you're disagreeable and you don't follow the rules of the game, people won't play with you." You exasperate me. :mad:

Are you gonna wise up or keep insisting that "It's them with the problem"?
:rofl:



“He who fails to understand, will only have the understanding to fail.”
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
A thread in the Political Forum sparked a question. It's about cultured meat. Meat grown in labs. So if they could take cells from a non-human animal, encode them to create human cells, would it be cannibalism to eat them? What would Jesus do?
I think you’d end up with a non human that appears to be human.
If I pay to have a lab make me some human tissue, can I do with it whatever I want?

So, Sean Carrol makes the argument that if we were able to reproduce ourselves exactly down to the atom that a separate consciousness would arise. The clone isn't me. It's its own being and therefore has it's own rights. What if I commission that they grow "me" in a lab minus a brain, or even just a rudimentary brain; good enough to walk around but maybe not to think, like a dog? What could I morally do to that thing? Could I put it on a leash like a dog? Make it crate up when I go to work? These problems are right around the corner, providing we don't blow ourselves up first.
If the govt can tax it, they’ll slap a social security number to it and own it like the rest of us.
 

Israel

Senior Member
WHY!!!!!?????

Why do you have to try so hard to be cryptic? Remember Jordan Peterson saying "If you're disagreeable and you don't follow the rules of the game, people won't play with you." You exasperate me. :mad:

Are you gonna wise up or keep insisting that "It's them with the problem"?
I am seriously interested to know where I have said "It's them with the problem". Even, to an insistence.

As to wising up, I don't know if I will. And were it granted to me to "wise up", I have a stronger persuasion I would not not know it, than that I would.

I am more convinced the that the someone coming into view in wisdom is already far more enrapturing than any regard of gaining in wisdom could persuade to attentions to some ridiculous metrics of gain. So, how would I know? (I know when I am not...however...it's those especial moments I roll it around in my mind, like a fine wine on my tongue..."I sure seem to be gaining in wisdom")

I'd rather, (May God show mercy! And far more than I have yet known!) see and know someone more clearly than I desire an ability to assure to myself I am making a progress. (And I am being daily persuaded this course is set...not of my own will)

But then, what about you? And I ask this, in all of sincerity I can know, presently. "What about you?"

Do I, by the above persuasions and growing desire, seek your nullification? Your disappearance from my sight...death...into a state of non being...to myself? Seek seeing One...to the absence of all others?

Do I?

But...how can that be? If there be longing for the all seeing, all knowing One , and it is being made the greater of reality both to me, and in me; then surely I am no less asking for the greater seeing of you...for if, or when I might assume (by a thing that would very much in fury try to win me to such assumption)...that you would be less seen to a "not knowing"...I nullify myself to His sight. Because He sees you...how could I...not want to?

To see Him who is all, knows all sees all, cannot also, and must, include the seeing...of you. Yes...even if at times the perception of what does accompany this seeing seems "less than needful", I am being persuaded that in that, I am being lied to.

Jordan Peterson may be right...in some things. And, I like seeing him, too. God knows. And God knows it was even through an introduction made through you that I begin to also...see him.

But...in what is he right? You've declared it. In what...is he right? Is he right when he has said "stop lying!"? (Are you aware of his position stated to this?) Or, is he only right when he says:

"If you're disagreeable and you don't follow the rules of the game, people won't play with you."
How right is he? To you? Who have said "Peterson is right".

Was he right to you when he spoke of "having the right mix of life and death in oneself..."? Did you find that...right? (Pertaining to resurrection).

So, is he right only...when you find him of some use to you in some exchange with another (perhaps like me)...or is he...right?

Will you be found merely using...Jordan Peterson?
Would you also then judge "a" God, who if, in your sight of convenience for judging the absurdity of "his followers" judge them for following a God...who (by your reckoning) just...uses people?

Tell me where one stands then, to judge.

If a man merely uses his brother...might that not also be all he is "allowed" to see of "a" god? The ultimate of user?

Jesus spoke of a man who judged himself by his own words "about God". Locked him up to it. Locked him up...in it.

"And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Why then gave not you my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required my own with interest?"

But, I do not want, (O God be true!) to know God in harshness. (I have! O! I have!) And to be found hoping at all, in any hope so vain...that he might be to you, but less than that...to me...is shown of such vanity!... that I fear. And do...tremble.

So...from you I need help.

Who am I answering?

This man?

Until we have completed the exercise I will assume that Jesus rose from the grave. Now what? How can I verify this belief?
Who decides when the exercise...is complete?
And who is umpire here...that "calls the game"?

I am persuaded very clever men think they can easily see both sides in a thing, without being committed to either.

And I think the man who says "I will assume my wife loves me" but then asks "what must I do to verify it?" does not at all know what he does to himself, and...will end up doing to his wife. And, their marriage.

I don't think very clever men...really know how they nullify their own selves.

Though I find some weakness in the word christian (in which I may be all of error) I will gladly enter its use if also no assumption is made as to what qualifies it.

A christian is not one who "assumes" the resurrection is true but is given to see it, and likewise in it all of God's unyielding commitment...to truth...by the raising of His Son...who is all of it. Yes, the God who is all of truth...has raised Jesus Christ. Not to the forming of a new, better...or different...religion. But that He may be seen (even, of men, to salvation) dwelling where lie is not, liars are not, and all truth has always, and will always...be all of what is.

God...is true. And no man sees Him, and knows Him, but the Son.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. (Italics mine)


If I have truly said "It's them with the problem", then I show myself, sinner. Nevertheless, this is not the word or work of Jesus Christ.

Yet, even if I have not, this does not vindicate me of anything.

But liars do have a problem, reconciled only in and through Jesus Christ...to the forbidding of them. In the giving of Himself...for them. He saves liars from appearing before God...naked, even forbids them so by commanding "repent, and believe the gospel". (Someone needed...is to stand...in your place)

I am on common ground of all men...needing someone true to speak for me, before God. I cannot begin to describe the benefits of that, the necessity of that...and yet a fool often tries to do what he knows he cannot.

"You have to let go of the outcome"
Yes, even if no one else..."plays with you"...or seeks to demand from you...what is no longer yours to give. There's no benefit to knowing me, but even I am only just beginning to learn that.

(But I would also be liar to not acknowledge the true friends...Christ gives me, they are invaluable to me...and I see them. They help my selfishness by their nobility...they cause me to want...more. And to seek Him...who alone knows the way of making enemies...friends)

 
Last edited:
I'm not talking about making a whole human yet. That's a fun question, too. They will have created human tissue; calf muscle, eye ball, skin, etc. The differences between these tissues and "natural" human tissues is the question. The non-human tissue is just basic building material. Take out the DNA and I'm pretty sure our collagen looks just like a fish's.

If I pay to have a lab make me some human tissue, can I do with it whatever I want?

So, Sean Carrol makes the argument that if we were able to reproduce ourselves exactly down to the atom that a separate consciousness would arise. The clone isn't me. It's its own being and therefore has it's own rights. What if I commission that they grow "me" in a lab minus a brain, or even just a rudimentary brain; good enough to walk around but maybe not to think, like a dog? What could I morally do to that thing? Could I put it on a leash like a dog? Make it crate up when I go to work? These problems are right around the corner, providing we don't blow ourselves up first.
Just my two cents... without a brain it’s just a slab of meat. Do with it as you wish.

Also an interesting thought about cloning someone down to the atomic level. We already make exact copies down to the lowest meaningful unit with computers. It’s a clone with the same data ie memories etc but it’s a separate instance. You aren’t just all of the information and experiences that comprise you. You are a particular instance. A lot of people don’t grasp this concept when thinking about cloning.
 
Thread starter #27

ambush80

Senior Member
Just my two cents... without a brain it’s just a slab of meat. Do with it as you wish.

Also an interesting thought about cloning someone down to the atomic level. We already make exact copies down to the lowest meaningful unit with computers. It’s a clone with the same data ie memories etc but it’s a separate instance. You aren’t just all of the information and experiences that comprise you. You are a particular instance. A lot of people don’t grasp this concept when thinking about cloning.

Do you think there are any moral or ethical issues with eating that meat?

How about creating "people" with the intellectual capacity of dogs?
 
Do you think there are any moral or ethical issues with eating that meat?

How about creating "people" with the intellectual capacity of dogs?
I think morality deals with how sentient beings deal with one another. If we are talking about human tissue that doesn’t involve another sentient being ie a brain then I don’t see any moral issue but I’m open to the possibility. I would have to hear a good argument and be persuaded.
 
Thread starter #29

ambush80

Senior Member
I think morality deals with how sentient beings deal with one another. If we are talking about human tissue that doesn’t involve another sentient being ie a brain then I don’t see any moral issue but I’m open to the possibility. I would have to hear a good argument and be persuaded.
I can't think of one either. I would be interested to see how religion informs this kind of question.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
I can't think of one either. I would be interested to see how religion informs this kind of question.
Do you think there are any moral or ethical issues with eating that meat?

How about creating "people" with the intellectual capacity of dogs?
Whatever is created is going to be without a brain / conscience......so....it is non-human. It is no different than molding a human shape from sand on the beach, and if one decides to eat that sand, they may be viewed as having the intellect of a dog..............

Would eating that meat be any different that pulling up a buffet line to eat on those that are brain dead on life support?

Ethically, morally, etc., can all differ with each crowd, but one thing is for sure, the "cornbread aint done in the middle" is going to be the first thing questioned.
 

660griz

Senior Member
If you are eating human flesh then, yes, it is cannibalism.
If it is morally or ethically accepted would greatly depend on how hungry you are, and/or where you are.
Growing people to eat would not be very profitable. There are animals that require much less time and care to reach 'eating' age.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #32

ambush80

Senior Member
If you are eating human flesh then, yes, it is cannibalism.
If it is morally or ethically accepted would greatly depend on how hungry you are, and/or where you are.
Growing people to eat would not be very profitable. There are animals that require much less time and care to reach 'eating' age.
I had two points.

1. Growing human flesh (not necessarily for consumption but that's the idea that I'm addressing with Atlas).

2. Growing a person with the brain of a dog.

What are the secular moral implications and what does religion have to say about either issue?
 
Thread starter #33

ambush80

Senior Member
Whatever is created is going to be without a brain / conscience......so....it is non-human. It is no different than molding a human shape from sand on the beach, and if one decides to eat that sand, they may be viewed as having the intellect of a dog..............
That's a pretty bold statement to be so definitive. Why are you so sure?

Would eating that meat be any different that pulling up a buffet line to eat on those that are brain dead on life support?

Ethically, morally, etc., can all differ with each crowd, but one thing is for sure, the "cornbread aint done in the middle" is going to be the first thing questioned.
What if a company offered a product they called "Meat"? Suppose that it contained some human DNA. Would it be Biblically wroing to eat it? What if was all human DNA, that is, if you took it to a lab to test what it was the test would come back "Human tissue", though it was grown in a lab?
 
Last edited:

Spotlite

Senior Member
That's a p0retty bold statement to be so definitive. Why are you so sure?
I`m not convinced that a conscience or brain can be created. Yea you could possibly create the "mechanics" of it, but can you give it "life" - the ability to think on it`s own without programming it?

What if a company offered a product they called "Meat"? Suppose that it contained some human DNA. Would it be Biblically wroing to eat it? What if was all human DNA, that is, if you took it to a lab to test what it was the test would come back "Human tissue", though it was grown in a lab?
It is mentioned a few times and is regarded as a horrible curse and act of desperation that one could call fall into when forsaking God.

Outside of religion, even society does not accept it as a norm.
 
I`m not convinced that a conscience or brain can be created. Yea you could possibly create the "mechanics" of it, but can you give it "life" - the ability to think on it`s own without programming it?


It is mentioned a few times and is regarded as a horrible curse and act of desperation that one could call fall into when forsaking God.

Outside of religion, even society does not accept it as a norm.
Odd then that you would engage in a symbolic act of cannibalism ie consuming the flesh and blood of your deity in human form.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
Odd then that you would engage in a symbolic act of cannibalism ie consuming the flesh and blood of your deity in human form.

Of course there are those that can make scripture fit their agenda.
 

Israel

Senior Member
Everyone knows what it means to give themselves to some endeavor. Some may have such a passion for it that they understand well if another says "I was totally consumed by the work".

It's a precious vanity to imagine, in whatever form, Jesus either silly or ignorant in speaking of the things he knows. Suffice it to say Jesus knows what men eat to satisfy their souls. And this meat of theirs becomes obvious as their strengths displayed, for the glory of their strength, is the plain showing of their trough. No man can hide this.

His deeds and efforts will testify of his meat, his words will testify of meat, his being...reeks of it.
An odor. A fragrance. And every man is inured to the right sensing of his own smell. Most...even, like what they imagine it to be. God knows I am included in every man.

Jesus "doubled down" when men were shocked:

"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"


Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

In another place, when the disciples imagined Jesus to be very hungry, they were reproved:

"I have meat to eat that you know not of"

And yet being rather dim, they themselves questioned:

"has any man brought him anything to eat?" (they, at that time, and to that time remained entrenched in their own ways of thinking) They naturally thought Jesus just being clever with them. (as in: "I ate on the sly")

Then Jesus made it plain:

"Jesus said to them, 'My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.' "

Yes, the work of God consumed Jesus Christ. In His eating of it, He likewise "gave himself" to that work.

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

In this, His giving of Himself fully to that work, Jesus never uttered a thing of silliness or ignorance that men themselves might end their "stinking the place up" with their own foolishness.



 

660griz

Senior Member
I had two points.

1. Growing human flesh (not necessarily for consumption but that's the idea that I'm addressing with Atlas).

2. Growing a person with the brain of a dog.

What are the secular moral implications and what does religion have to say about either issue?
I was continuing my opinion to post #1.

However,
I am not Atlas but, since I am already typing. :)
Point 1.) Awesome, especially if they can grow replacement parts for me.
Point 2.) Seems like a waste of time. You can just go out on the street and look around for a very short while.

I believe religion will mostly be united against it unless it is needed by one of them to save their life or the life of a loved one.

"One should not play God"...until they need it and then it will be, "God gave them the ability to grow..."

Moral implications for #1? Don't see it.
Moral implications for #2? Why would you want to do that? The answer would help with moral implications...or not.
 
Top