Christian Cannibalism

[Zzyzx]

.
Christian Cannibalism

Since some seem concerned about "Atheist cannibalism" it might be only fair to point out that cannibalism is not only condoned by the bible and among Christians, but is encouraged (or mandated).

According to 1 Corinthians 11:23 – 29, Mark 14:22-24, Mark 26:26-28, and Luke 22:15-20, at "The Last Supper" Jesus is said to have given Apostles bread and wine saying, "This is my body" and "This is my blood".

John 6:53-56 was even more specific

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Many Christian sects engage in ritual cannibalism called "Eucharist" or "Holy Communion" or other names. To identify a few: Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist (some), Methodist, Jehovah's Witness, LDS, Seventh-day Adventist, Brethren. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#Protestants

More Christian Cannibalism.

The most famous example of known cannibalism in the United States occurred in the infamous Donner Party event of 1848. There is evidence that some of the participants were Christians – and that others converted to Christianity after the experience. http://raiboy.tripod.com/Donner/id15.html

Pre-Donner Party:
Roman Catholics: The Breens/Patrick Doolan
Mormon/Church of LDS: Lavinah Murphy (reportedly)
Methodist: Margaret Reed
Lutheran/Other Protestant: Louis Keseberg and possibly others.

Post-Donner Party
Roman Catholic: The Breens/The Fosters/Mary Murphy/Virginia Backenstoe Reed
Episcopalians: (American Anglicans) Eliza Donner and Naomi Pike
Methodist: The Kesebergs, Margaret Reed and Nancy Graves
Baptist: Lovina Graves
Congregationist: (Neo-Puritan) William Murphy

As for everyone else, not everyone could become active in Church communities, some being farmers out in the rural Sacramento Valley. Others attended non-denominational community churches, and others still prayed to God in their own way.

Questions for debate:

1. Are there verifiable examples of Atheism promoting cannibalism (or symbolic cannibalism) as is done in Christian bible and churches?

2. Is there any reason (other than prejudice) for Christians to conclude that Atheists are more prone to cannibalism than are Christians?

3. Are African and/or Island cultures that practiced cannibalism (or still do so at least symbolically) more Atheistic than Theistic?

[dianaiad]

[quote="theopoesis"]<snip to>

Reason? Show me the reason here. I scoff at this reason. <snip to end>

Thus writteth the consummate academic. I was doing fine until you pulled Lacan into the mix!

The problem is, while I fully agree with your claim that we are driven by the symbolic. However, given that we are, how reasonable is it to claim that using such symbols in debating core philosophies, is a complete abrogation of logical thought?

If we think and deal in symbols, we must, then, be willing to communicate in them. The problem, of course, is that somehow we have to come to an agreement regarding the meaning of those symbols, lest we talk right past each other.

Oh.

Wait.

Never mind.

[Zzyzx]

.

I must admit that I am disappointed by this post. I was quite pleased at the return of the great Zzyzx. Along with a few others here, I have generally found your threads most worthy of reading, and generally my only participation this month has been on threads which you have begun or have created. I must say, that trend is now over.

Thank you Theo. I will consider your words.


Z

[Frankly]

.
3. Are African and/or Island cultures that practiced cannibalism (or still do so at least symbolically) more Atheistic than Theistic?

If you are going to touch on cannibalism in animist societies, get ready for a stick subject. You will find that only the most devout of spritualists will practice cannibalism in these societies. Its thier very belief in the spiritual side of whats going on that drives them to cannibalize to begin with. For example:

The Gabusi of new zealand believe that when someone dies of what they deem to be "unnatural causes" (murder, freak accidents, animal attack, drowning, disease , etc) they have the witch doctor figure out the cause. Often, its a "sorcerer" that is among thier own number. The accused must perform a difficult non skill based test. If they pass, it shows the victims ghost was on hand to help with the task and assured success, exhonerating the "sorcerer" who promises to give up thier evil ways. As the result comes closer and closer to failure, there is less and less doubt to the sorcerers guilt, and eventually they are killed.

Now here is where the cannabalism comes in. The Gabusi believe in reincarnation. And according to some rules they know about this reincarnation, sorcerers are invariably reborn as pigs. This makes it ok to roast and eat a sorcerer because he/she is already been undeniably proven to be/and gonna be a pig. Yum Yum.


A case of philisophical cannibalism is here:

the Inuktitut had a diet that was nearly all deer. They believe that because all they eat is deer, that they are deer themselves. There mother and father are deer. Thier brothers and sisters are deer. They literally believe that they are bones surrounded by deer flesh shaped like humans. So , when they have kuntucky fried deer on tuesday night, are they conducting cannabilism?

Mmmmm- You folk seem to like twisting facts to suit your own situation The "Maori" of New Zealand never heard of the "Gabusi" when they had Cannibal tenancies (100s of years ago)

"It aint what we dont know that gets us into trouble. It''''s what we do know for sure that just aint so."
~Mark Twain

"A wiseman proportions his belief with the evidence."
~David Hume

If you can't face reality and see how very primitive this practice is then you risk the mirth of your peers. To not see how irrational this practice is and yet to defend this practice from practical discussion by providing dubious references or questioning a mans integrity in bringing the matter up suggests an underlying guilt of patronage to practices that have become more of a habit than an "activity resultant from deep thought".

Face it folk the imagery of cannibalism is not good for a balanced head space- that it causes you offense to have this dirty linen aired is no different from the Vatican protecting Humans from having committed sexual offenses against little boys- some things need to be faced when there is a problem- it is part of healthy growth that one is capable of identifying that which is unhealthy and/or creeeeeeepy and addressing that issue not castigating someone (as has theopoesis) who brings the credibility of an ongoing issue to roost.

tweaking noses eh?

Pussies should play fair~ local vet

[Wootah]

I must admit that I am disappointed by this post. I was quite pleased at the return of the great Zzyzx. Along with a few others here, I have generally found your threads most worthy of reading, and generally my only participation this month has been on threads which you have begun or have created. I must say, that trend is now over.

Off topic but I was totally surprised at the recent posts by Zzyzx as well. This topic borders on the absurd.

On topic. There is a saying that 'you are what you eat'. If you consume edifying ideas and thoughts you will be edified and vice versa. That notion is sufficient to understand what Jesus means without being base and suggesting cannibalism.

Having said that. I am also aware I just read Mark chapter 7 in bible study last week and in it Jesus is clearly saying that it isn't what passes through our body that defiles us but what comes from within our hearts.

Isn't one of the schisms between protestant and catholic that communion is symbolic for the protestants and literal for the catholics?

And to add more. This topic like all is worth Christians discussing. God goes to hard places. I fully think that our societies are cannibalistic in everything but the literal sense and so understanding this and rejecting it is part of what Jesus wants. I would hold the line in arguing that we either will eat of God or we will eat each other but I fully understand that that realisation is ahead of the horse for many people.

[sarabellum]

Yet so simular to the atheist/cannibalism Op?
(from a different author)

I see....



Personally I see the Eucharist as a symbolic ritual...

Cannibals for Christ is not an official denomination....
(seems silly to me)

[Board]

I must admit that I am disappointed by this post. I was quite pleased at the return of the great Zzyzx. Along with a few others here, I have generally found your threads most worthy of reading, and generally my only participation this month has been on threads which you have begun or have created. I must say, that trend is now over.

Off topic but I was totally surprised at the recent posts by Zzyzx as well. This topic borders on the absurd.

If you haven't caught on, the topic is a direct response to the equally absurd topics started by Shermana that are titled:

How much are Atheists concerned about stopping FGM?
Why would an Atheist be against Slavery? (Israelite)
Why don't Atheists support Cannibalism?

All three of those topics are absurd and do nothing more than encourage equally absurd responses.

[Wootah]

I must admit that I am disappointed by this post. I was quite pleased at the return of the great Zzyzx. Along with a few others here, I have generally found your threads most worthy of reading, and generally my only participation this month has been on threads which you have begun or have created. I must say, that trend is now over.

Off topic but I was totally surprised at the recent posts by Zzyzx as well. This topic borders on the absurd.

If you haven't caught on, the topic is a direct response to the equally absurd topics started by Shermana that are titled:

How much are Atheists concerned about stopping FGM?
Why would an Atheist be against Slavery? (Israelite)
Why don't Atheists support Cannibalism?

All three of those topics are absurd and do nothing more than encourage equally absurd responses.

Oh.

[Jester]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Shemana's topic definitely does not justify this topic. Neither one seems appropriate for the apologetics forum; both strike me as flame-bait.

Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[Critic]

Possibly the weakest debate in reality is to discard others points of view entirely, and label them.
Some very interesting points were made here until some joker interceded- perhaps the moderator should use a little moderation- it could be quite humbling (although uninvited) but it is seemingly necessitated.

There seemed to be some real objections to this subject matter from presentation of false facts to "I don't like you for painting this picture" and on the other hand there was those more genuine in their approach- my guess is that an intelligent man would make intelligent contributions and the less would attack the messenger (but that's only a guess)-

On topic. There is a saying that 'you are what you eat'. If you consume edifying ideas and thoughts you will be edified and vice versa. That notion is sufficient to understand what Jesus means without being base and suggesting cannibalism.

Having said that. I am also aware I just read Mark chapter 7 in bible study last week and in it Jesus is clearly saying that it isn't what passes through our body that defiles us but what comes from within our hearts.

I forgot "cherry picking" as well ...... "All of the paths of man lead to death"

Actions speak loader than words- The joker in the kids outfit has found the best debate strategy while the best quote would have to be

Pussies should play fair~ local vet

A little note relating to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- (belongs here)
We all eat and S..... excrete
There is food for thought and some people talk S......
Sometimes food for thought requires a little while to digest
Good luck with that-

Censorship walks closely with oppressive doctrine- go figure

The practice discussed is Pathetic, and deserves the mirth it receives as much as the practice of idolatry - "Holy Cross" you folk need a good shake up.

[Zzyzx]

Theo,

At first I was saddened by your indication of loss of respect.

However, after careful consideration that is no longer the case. I regard your change as being based upon personal emotional reaction to a difference in opinion.

You are entitled to regard a religious ritual as being "holy" or "sacred" and to think of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" as being something other than reference to humans eating humans (the definition of cannibalism).

I am equally entitled to regard the ritual and the words as being reference to humans eating humans.

You are entitled to think of such things as "symbolic" or whatever you choose, just as I am entitled to think of them otherwise (and cite reasons for so doing).

I do not lose respect for you because you maintain or state your opinion.

If you choose a different route, so be it.


Z