DescentBB

Ok if it came down to it would you eat dead people.

I went to a survival training while in the service. I found you would eat just about anything to survive. So if it really meant you want to live would you


Oh I just watched the movie \"Alive\" if you were wondering.

I “might” if the person was already dead…but, I would never kill. (people)

Pass the ribs

If I had no other food source? Heck yeah, give me some freakin hot sauce

BACON!

If any of you come across my dead body you have my permission EAT ME.

LOL since you put it THAT WAY, no thanks!

You SICK puppies you! There's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many cooties you can get from eating other humans!

Read the novel 'Dies the Fire' by S.M. Stirling. You'll get an idea of what happens to \"eaters\"! (Hint: They aren't the survivors.)

wheres my flesh eating option?

There's way too much other stuff to eat to even consider humans, unless your hopeless. HEH oh yeah, Insurrectionist. you do have my vote for first bullet . That's always my fear in times of distress. The hopeless and the Godless who fear their own death. You can believe this nation wasn't built with that kind of compromise.

hmf, well put flip. Was thinking along the same lines just didn't know how to word it.

How do you know that it's bad to be dead?

I don't actually know what lengths I'd go to. But I always find it funny when other people are sure they do, as if you can understand the stress of the situation from sitting here at your keyboard imagining it.

Eating people is REALLY bad for you. Starving to death is also quite bad. Rationally speaking, then, eating people could be a last resort. Could I do it? Would I snap and do it before it was necessary? I don't know, and I don't think it's worthwhile to theorize.

flip wrote:There's way too much other stuff to eat to even consider humans, unless your hopeless. HEH oh yeah, Insurrectionist. you do have my vote for first bullet . That's always my fear in times of distress. The hopeless and the Godless who fear their own death. You can believe this nation wasn't built with that kind of compromise.

Yea, easy to be righteous with a full belly.

Nobody knows what they would do at a time of total desperation…nobody.

Bullcrap. Maybe you don't know what you would do. I do. I believe in an afterlife and I would see that very situation as a make or break your faith. That could be the very time your given the choice of whether you want to be righteous or not.

Yeah I agree Lothar. It's the theorizing while nothing is at hand that would make me distrustful. I think if you could imagine yourself eating human flesh, which is wholeheartedly wrong and even good sense forbids Well then you probably would.
What ever happened to \"Give me Liberty or Give me Death?\" I believe right now there are people in our military, having never faced death before, will get up and attack knowing they are gonna die. Maybe we should train ourselves to think as they do. That there are more important things than life.

flip wrote:Maybe you don't know what you would do. I do. I believe in an afterlife and I would see that very situation as a make or break your faith. That could be the very time your given the choice of whether you want to be righteous or not.

I'm with Lothar and Spidey on this one. I think you may be confusing knowing what you believe you SHOULD do with knowing what you WILL do. Knowing what you WILL do is never certain until you've been tried under fire (although knowing what you believe you SHOULD do will certainly help during the moment of crisis!)

To give a much less controversial example. My wife, my son and I are all vegetarians. It's not a religious requirement, just something we do partially for health, but mainly because meat is just so darn GROSS!

At mealtime once my son announced that he would NEVER eat meat, even if he were starving to death. I pointed out to him that the longest he had EVER gone without food was about 20 hours, and by that point he was looking at cardboard boxes and drooling. To say "I won't eat that, its too gross", mainly means you aren't really hungry. Go without food for several days, or a week, and grasshoppers might start looking VERY tasty.

Now, of course, thats just a "gross out" issue, and many people feel that cannibalism is a moral issue, so I freely admit that the analogy is not complete. BUT, I think it still applies to a large degree. Many people who thought they had decided to remain virgins until marriage found that their choice changed when a member of the opposite sex was very close and willing. Many people who were certain they would never steal found that they made a different choice when they REALLY needed the money and it looked like they wouldn't get caught.

I'm not denying in anyway the power of human choice. Quite the opposite. I'm just saying that there is often a difference in temper between the choice we THINK we would make, and the choice we ACTUALLY make under stress and severe temptation. The best way to prepare for that stress and temptation (IMHO), is to make the choice ahead of time, to know WHY you made the choice, and, from a Christian perspective, to learn to rely on the power of Christ, because on your own, you WILL fail.

Ok Kilarin I'm gonna respond real quick to one thing, then I have to leave.

Knowing what you WILL do is never certain until you've been tried under fire

Go and read that bible of yours and look at every person there that was \"tried by fire\" or starvation and what their decisions were. Then I absolutely concede that NONE of us here KNOW what we would do.
I do however believe that everyone of those people wrote about in that bible of yours, all had to make similar choices. I'm certain at this point on one thing concerning life. It's gonna end. Whether you lived 4 years or 100, as far as any of us know at that point you no longer exist. I'm gonna hope for and choose an afterlife.

░

I voted no.

I'm wondering how gag reflex would play into it. On a full stomach, I don't think I could eat human, because I just wouldn't be able to get it down. Would that change if I was starving? Probably.

I'd say that this is the psychological question:

Usually our logic rules over our conditioning and instinct. As situations get more and more desperate, our logic looses its grip, and get start being driven by the other two, I think. So, the real question is, how are we conditioning ourselves... since I don't think that there's much that we can do about our instinct.

snoopy wrote:I voted no.

I'm wondering how gag reflex would play into it. On a full stomach, I don't think I could eat human, because I just wouldn't be able to get it down. Would that change if I was starving? Probably.

I'd say that this is the psychological question:

Usually our logic rules over our conditioning and instinct. As situations get more and more desperate, our logic looses its grip, and get start being driven by the other two, I think. So, the real question is, how are we conditioning ourselves... since I don't think that there's much that we can do about our instinct.

Hunger can override logic and prudery/revulsion when it comes to survival, no matter how we try to condition ourselves. We think that we can as we sit in our comfortable homes with food stocked in our kitchens and not EVER resort to cannibalism. But the survival instinct is basal and primitive, so it would take A LOT of logic and effort to overcome that instinct. For the record, I voted 'no', but I have no idea what I would do in a REALLY desperate situation were no other food was available. However, I would not KILL another human for food, no matter what. Killing myself would be a better alternative (I would first make sure my body wouldn't be available for others to consume afterwards though).

Look at those on that Uruguayan rugby team that survived an aircraft crash in the Andes. They eventually resorted to cannibalism to survive, even overcoming their gag reflex to satiate their hunger with frozen human flesh. And the mind can rationalize the act by calling it something else. In this case, since they were Roman Catholics, they rationalized the eating of their companions by calling it 'Holy Communion'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_ ... Flight_571

I don't know how many of you have actually been around a dead person. I'm not talking about funerals. I'm talking, you walk into a room with a person that's been dead a day or so. It isn't pretty. Certainly not appetizing in any way.

I would have no trouble starving myself. I've gone long periods without eating. I do not fear death and I've found that after a couple of days without food my mind becomes quite clear. If you have water, you can live a long time. (about a month) .. unless you're anorexic with no energy reserves.


There's always what if you're stranded on a frozen mountain top from a plane crash. There are always options though. Basic survival skills will keep you out of most situations (if not all) that would resort to this.

Besides, you won't be eating a dead person after the first 8 hours of death anyways. (plus or minus depending on temperature outside) Unless you field dress the person, which is something I could Not bring myself to do.

Duper wrote:I would have no trouble starving myself. I've gone long periods without eating. I do not fear death and I've found that after a couple of days without food my mind becomes quite clear.

I'm not afraid of death, but hunger makes me very unhappy. I really don't think I could eat a person. But I've never been starving on a mountaintop wondering what will happen to my boy and wife if I don't come back to them.

flip wrote:Go and read that bible of yours and look at every person there that was "tried by fire" or starvation Wink and what their decisions were. Then I absolutely concede that NONE of us here KNOW what we would do.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean, but happy to comply:

Daniel: underwent severe trials and came through without compromising.
David: Committed adultery and then added murder of a close friend on top of that, just because he saw a pretty woman taking a bath.
Joseph: Stood up for what he believed in, even when everything around him said it was a waste of time and likely to get him killed.
Judas: Worked miracles while a Disciple, then ended up betraying his master
Esther: risked her life to save her people
Josiah: Started off strong for the lord, raising money to repair the temple. Then later apostatized, gave away temple items to pacify enemies, etc.

And lets not forget Peter:

Mat 26:34 wrote:Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

And then:

Mat 26:69-75 wrote:Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Again, not to offend those who are not Christians, but from a Christian perspective, no matter how certain you are right NOW about what decision you will make, if, when the moment hits, you rely on yourself and not Christ, you will fail. Which will you do? The choice is up to you, but the evidence says that what you say NOW doesn't necessarily prove what you will decide THEN.

Eh I guess it all comes down to how convinced you are. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you either. Some examples you used (David and Judas) Judas being the best example. He was (tried by fire) and failed. Hung on a tree and cursed. Became a condemned man in this life and the next. That's my point. David did just as you said. He was also punished severely (lost his first born, his son tried to take over his kingdom and slept with all his wives openly to shame him, and war never left his life from that point on). The only reason David was not condemned is because he fell on his knees and repented. These are examples of men who did compromise. What would have happened had Jesus turned the stone into bread? Why was that such a temptation to him? Seems much more harmless to me than actually eating a human being. How would Jesus have disqualified himself (sinned) by turning that stone into bread?

Man, this thread is no longer fun.

Flip wrote:What would have happened had Jesus turned the stone into bread? Why was that such a temptation to him? Seems much more harmless to me than actually eating a human being. How would Jesus have disqualified himself (sinned) by turning that stone into bread?

Rabbit trailing a bit, sorry. If Christian philosophy offends any reader, please just skip the rest of this post.

There is only one sin, and only one temptation, to live a life apart from Christ. All else is just a symptom. No matter how good we try to be, on our own, it only affects the outside. And no matter how hard we try, all of our own righteousness is as filthy rags. The Isaiah 64:6 reference to "filthy rags" isn't translated quite right. Look it up by the strong's numbers in the link there. "Filthy Rags" literally translates to "menstruation rag".

The ONLY way we can change, is to rely on God and his power. He promises to create within us a new heart. When He comes into our lives, the changes happen on the INSIDE, and those internal changes in what kind of person we are result in outward changes in our behavior.

So, The only real sin is to live a life apart from God. And what was Satan tempting Christ to do? To turn stones into bread of his OWN power. Every miracle Christ worked on this earth, He worked through God's power, He didn't rely on His own strength. Satan was trying to get Christ to do rely on Himself instead of God.

There is nothing wrong with eating bread, there is nothing wrong with turning stones into bread. But in this case, God was not offering the power to Christ to turn stone into bread, and there is EVERYTHING wrong with trying to live on our own power instead of on God's power.

The funny thing is, Christ is the only human in history who actually COULD have lived on His own power, He WAS God. But he voluntarily chose to restrict Himself to being human, and using His own power would have violated that and destroyed the entire plan of salvation.

So when Paul says that Jesus was tempted IN EVERY WAY, just as we are, he didn't mean that Jesus was tempted to hack into the bank's mainframe, or that Jesus was tempted by cybersex. It means that ALL temptations are really just branches off of the one trunk of temptation. ALL temptations are just variations on the temptation to live on our own, to live outside of Grace, to live apart from God. Christ was tempted to do this more strongly than any of us have ever been, because He COULD have. And yet He stood strong for us and chose to go all the way through to the cross.

Man, this thread is no longer fun.

Sorry! Hate to break up the fun of cannibalism!

I’m not afraid of death…it’s the dying part that gives me trouble…

I think in a matter of starvation one's higher reasoning is one of the first casualties of the human body and I think social taboos are part of that.
For me if it came down to the unavoidable choice, cannibalism or painful death by starvation, there would only be two questions. Who to eat and which part to eat.
If there is a corpse already the first question is solved. If not, then I doubt I would be interested in a contest of who starves to death first. So if you're ever stranded in that type of life or death situation with me, don't go to sleep.
On the other hand, if I'm dead I'm gone. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes and all that. My body will nourish the earth one way or another so you can EAT ME for all I care... Face first if you want.

And what was Satan tempting Christ to do? To turn stones into bread of his OWN power. Every miracle Christ worked on this earth, He worked through God's power, He didn't rely on His own strength. Satan was trying to get Christ to do rely on Himself instead of God.

Exactly! He lived as a mere mortal so we could live just like him. Doing everything through the Spirit just as he did. That's why the eating of human flesh, forbidden by God, is an act of hopelessness and faithlessness. Every apostle was given the choice to deny Jesus or die. Well whether they were crazy or not, they were convinced. They let people drag them to their deaths and all they had to do was tell a white lie. \"NO I don't know the man\".
I give peter concession because he was left to himself because Jesus had not yet ascended. After the Spirit was given freely to all men (not just to the prophets, priests and kings of Israel) no one had an excuse anymore. We have the same Spirit through which Jesus was raised from the dead. IF that is the case, then wouldn't an desperate act such as eating human flesh be considered faithless and hopeless. Seeing that faith is the ONLY way to be redeemed. I also have no doubt that God would forgive those that did, but not me. He who already knows and then goes ahead chooses his own fate. Just like Judas.

flip wrote:give peter concession because he was left to himself because Jesus had not yet ascended. After the Spirit was given freely to all men (not just to the prophets, priests and kings of Israel) no one had an excuse anymore.

I don't think mankind has EVER been left on their own without the Spirit of God to help, or they would have all been doomed. BUT, that is drifting WAY to far off topic, so I'll leave it for another day.

flip wrote: That's why the eating of human flesh, forbidden by God, is an act of hopelessness and faithlessness.

I'm not defending cannibalism here, but I'm not aware of any text that specifically forbids it. Can you point me to the text you are thinking about?

There are several texts that refer to a siege being so horrible that people did, or will, eat human flesh. But while these obviously imply this is a bad thing, without the murder angle (and yes, I will be keeping my eyes open if I'm ever around when Tankie2 has missed a mid-afternoon snack!), it's not actually a MORAL condemnation, just saying that would be HORRIBLE. Like having to eat your shoes, only a lot worse.

I guess the best biblical argument (that I can come up with) would be to point at the Levitical dietary restrictions. Man does not split the hoof or chew the cud, ergo, unclean. Must be why they call it "long pork"

Seriously, eating people is a VERY bad idea from a health perspective, and certainly has moral questions around it that can be argued from a "Natural Law" point of view. But if there is a direct Biblical argument stronger than than the Leviticus 11 one, I'm not familiar with it and would certainly be interested in seeing it.

Read This It's a blog entitled: \"In Defense of Infant Cannibalism\"

Not a moral issue?

...wow...

duper wrote:Not a moral issue?

Woah! That is NOT what I meant or said. I said:

Kilarin wrote:it's not actually a MORAL condemnation

I was NOT trying to say that cannibalism wasn't a moral issue, and left an very clear escape clause around murder, which is covered in the 10 commandments. I was only saying that a text stating "the siege will be so bad you will eat dead children" is NOT a direct moral condemnation any more than saying "you will be so hungry you will eat your shoes" is. It's just a description of desperation. VERY bad desperation.

The question would be whether the texts about eating your own children are clearly about murdering and eating them or not. A good argument could be made there that these texts imply murder.

ALSO, if these texts do NOT directly condemn cannibalism, they certainly don't defend it in any way.

Cannibalism could be very very wrong and never happen to have been directly condemned in the Bible. It's one of those things that seems pretty obvious.

MAD COW. It seems it's condemned in reality also.

Kilarin wrote:

duper wrote:Not a moral issue?

Woah! That is NOT what I meant or said. I said:

Kilarin wrote:it's not actually a MORAL condemnation

...

Oops, sorry Kilarin. I know. This was a general statement; not leveled at anyone or any comment. I posted it for perspective.

Ok I have read that a few here think human meat is bad for you well can not the same be said about any meats.

Then a few are talking about God and the immorality of eating human. Take a look at the book of acts chapter 11 where Peter had a vision of a cloth from heaven with all types of beast and God told him do not call what he has cleansed unclean.

Duper wrote:Oops, sorry Kilarin.

No need to apologize, I just wanted to make certain I hadn't said that!

Insurrectionist wrote:Ok I have read that a few here think human meat is bad for you well can not the same be said about any meats.

There are different levels of "Bad". Eating pork is riskier than eating beef. There are more diseases that can transfer between human and pig than human and cow. But ANYTHING that a human can catch, you can catch, because you are also (we hope) human. VERY VERY bad. As flip said, "Mad Cow" (actually Creutzfeldt Jacob disease)

Insurrectionist wrote:Take a look at the book of acts chapter 11

It was actually a vision about people, not eating. (Especially not about eating people!) Check out Peter's own interpretation just a little bit further on.

For me personally this issue ia a “Taboo” issue, because as I have stated before…a moral issue must have a “victim”.

In tc’s case it might be considered immoral, because of her wishes, but not the case with tankie. The important thing about a person is the soul…the body is only a few bucks worth of minerals and water.

Health issues not withstanding, but if you are about to starve to death, hell a little herpes might not be so bad. You guys are talking about this like it’s lunch.

Try to remember the context.

spidey wrote:In tc’s case it might be considered immoral, because of her wishes, but not the case with tankie.

But Tankie2's said:

Tankie2 wrote:I doubt I would be interested in a contest of who starves to death first. So if you're ever stranded in that type of life or death situation with me, don't go to sleep.

And this scenario clearly has a victim.

Spidey wrote:Health issues not withstanding, but if you are about to starve to death, hell a little herpes might not be so bad. You guys are talking about this like it’s lunch.
Try to remember the context.

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all. You are absolutely correct, the health angle only applies when you aren't starving. I DID mean that, but I guess I didn't clarify the point.

See that's the problem with the hopeless, they are programmed to want to \"survive\" by people who preach the principles of Darwinian evolution. :P

It's not that hard NOT to eat a human. Unless you're one of the nephilim. :P Or Tankie ;)

Of course, if I was with person who wanted to eat me and knew it, I would incapacitate him... then maybe I could think about sleep. :P

Yeah I can see this. Take those from the crash in the Andes. Now they fooled themselves into thinking it was \"Holy Communion\". Must of been alot of rationalizing being done there. Now they go forth and do the unthinkable. Now just as \"Mad Cow\" was created at the moment they started feeding cattle to cattle, maybe some of these super illnesses we see now were caused by people caught in those situations. They survive and by doing so infect millions with new unheard of viruses, when they should have accepted their fate.