# Cannibalism



## ambush80 (May 3, 2018)

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?


----------



## 660griz (May 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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?



He's good with it.

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink (John 6:53-55).


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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?


So really the first question is did they create a human from those non human cells by encoding them.
Tricky question.
Under your scenario is there any, and I mean ANY, difference between a natural born human and this "created" human?
Any left over ANYTHING from the original non human cell?


----------



## ambush80 (May 3, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So really the first question is did they create a human from those non human cells by encoding them.
> Tricky question.
> Under your scenario is there any, and I mean ANY, difference between a natural born human and this "created" human?
> Any left over ANYTHING from the original non human cell?



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.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 3, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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.


Ok gotcha. I was going too far ahead with it.


> It's its own being and therefore has it's own rights.


There's a Star Trek episode (one of the new fangled versions of Star Trek) that addressed that very subject about Data.
Self awareness was the determining factor in whether he was a being and therefore had rights.


----------



## ambush80 (May 3, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok gotcha. I was going too far ahead with it.
> 
> There's a Star Trek episode (one of the new fangled versions of Star Trek) that addressed that very subject about Data.
> Self awareness was the determining factor in whether he was a being and therefore had rights.



I love the subject of AI.  It raises some cool philosophical and moral questions.  I would love for some believers to weigh in on the subject of AI through their lens of faith.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 3, 2018)

I think Jesus wouldn't give it a second thought. Matter of fact if you're having lunch with him you better chow down quick or he'll pull the "are you gonna finish that?" routine. And he reads your newspaper from over your shoulder - I hate that! 

Seriously though the whole "Soylent Green" thing might not be too far off!


----------



## NCHillbilly (May 3, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok gotcha. I was going too far ahead with it.
> 
> There's a Star Trek episode (one of the new fangled versions of Star Trek) that addressed that very subject about Data.
> Self awareness was the determining factor in whether he was a being and therefore had rights.



Ted the teddy bear had to go to court about this issue, too.


----------



## ambush80 (May 3, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Ted the teddy bear had to go to court about this issue, too.



 I love that bear.


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I love the subject of AI.  It raises some cool philosophical and moral questions.  I would love for some believers to weigh in on the subject of AI through their lens of faith.



AI...just making more of itself...having zero clue what it is doing.


"Forgive them Father, they don't know what they are doing"


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

Israel said:


> AI...just making more of itself...having zero clue what it is doing.
> 
> 
> "Forgive them Father, they don't know what they are doing"



So, you think we should stop trying to make AI?  Talk to me like we're in that jon boat drowning minnows.


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2018)

Brother (I'd say)...what's gonna be is gonna be, no matter my opinion of it.

So maybe the question ain't right?



> "So, you think we should stop trying to make AI?"



I think it'd be a good idea for the tide to stop if I'm buried to my neck in the sand below the high water line too.

Do I think it's so normally horrific that men do stuff as though they also control consequences? Yeah...but my knowing that...has never even stopped me.


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

Israel said:


> Brother (I'd say)...what's gonna be is gonna be, no matter my opinion of it.
> 
> So maybe the question ain't right?
> 
> ...



Yeah, but I asked your opinion.  

It seems to me like you're saying that you think it will lead to our inevitable death (the rising tide).  You also seem to say that you think we do things without considering the consequences.  And then you seem to be saying that you do that yourself.  Do you notice something?   I consistently have to qualify by saying "you seem to be saying".  

I just want to point out how easily and simply you could have said those things and I wouldn't have to try to interpret what you said.  I'm going to attempt to translate what you said into conversational English.  "I think that AI will lead to our eventual death.  We often build things that are dangerous to us without considering the dangers.  I do it myself."  Did that get the gist or did my lack of poetry miss some nuance?  

I think you're wrong.  I think that very bright and concerned people recognize the dangers of AI and are seeking to only advance the technology if the best possible safeguards are in place.  They know we can't cover all the bases but we can try.  Some AI theorists think that AI developers and advanced nations should have a type Manhattan Project for AI.  I agree that the advancement of the technology will continue.


----------



## Israel (May 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah, but I asked your opinion.
> 
> It seems to me like you're saying that you think it will lead to our inevitable death (the rising tide).  You also seem to say that you think we do things without considering the consequences.  And then you seem to be saying that you do that yourself.  Do you notice something?   I consistently have to qualify by saying "you seem to be saying".
> 
> ...





> Did that get the gist or did my lack of poetry miss some nuance?




Nah, you got it fair 'nough.

Do I see brain sucking droids on the horizon? Things that will creep silently into homes, steal babies out of cribs and inject them with some germ of data that will turn them to their use, allowing them to stare mindlessly and interminably at their own image in awe? Believing they see? Enamored of what they behold?

Nah...I don't see that, not in the future, anyway.


----------



## ambush80 (May 5, 2018)

Israel said:


> Nah, you got it fair 'nough.
> 
> Do I see brain sucking droids on the horizon? Things that will creep silently into homes, steal babies out of cribs and inject them with some germ of data that will turn them to their use, allowing them to stare mindlessly and interminably at their own image in awe? Believing they see? Enamored of what they behold?
> 
> Nah...I don't see that, not in the future, anyway.



What do you think "turn them to their use" means?


----------



## Israel (May 6, 2018)

and there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, that also the image of the beast may speak, and that it may cause as many as shall not bow before the image of the beast, that they may be killed.

But that too, neither do I see _in the future_

BTW...ya see 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri?

It's exactly like Arrival, but without Aliens and "space ships" and an emphasis on the nuances of language and its either limits...(or boundlessness to a) communication. Which itself was just like "The Shawshank Redemption" but without prison and guards and a Raquel Welch poster...which was also just like Tombstone but without horses and pistol twirling...which is just like...


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

Israel said:


> and there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, that also the image of the beast may speak, and that it may cause as many as shall not bow before the image of the beast, that they may be killed.
> 
> But that too, neither do I see _in the future_
> 
> ...



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.  

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


----------



## NCHillbilly (May 7, 2018)

I have figured it out at last.

Israel wrote the Bible! That's why there are 50,000 denominations of Christians who have spent the last 2,000 years trying to figure out what it means and translate it to understandable, normal non-metaphoric speech.


----------



## Israel (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


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



I can't deny it could very well be me..."trying" to be cryptic.

But couldn't it very well be you, thinking you know yourself so well as being able to rightly attribute motives from there...on to another? 

Simply..."for me to be like the way I perceive him...that would _be me trying very hard _to be cryptic" (What weighs five pounds of cryptic in me...)


As to playing the JBP card...c'mon. 

It's almost like you saying to someone ...maybe even someone like me...

"you know...I got this very important _new info _for you, hot of the press from Jordan 'you'll find folks way more amenable if YOU do this...or stop doing that' "


For that there would have to be the assumption "it must be very important that I find people a certain way _relative to me_"=I must be very important then.

Don't hurt yourself on the ha ha's going out.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

Israel said:


> and there was given to it to give a spirit to the image of the beast, that also the image of the beast may speak, and that it may cause as many as shall not bow before the image of the beast, that they may be killed.
> 
> But that too, neither do I see _in the future_
> 
> ...





Israel said:


> I can't deny it could very well be me..."trying" to be cryptic.
> 
> But couldn't it very well be you, thinking you know yourself so well as being able to rightly attribute motives from there...on to another?
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Israel (May 7, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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.


----------



## ambush80 (May 7, 2018)

israel said:


> an excellent place to start...and stay.



ok.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

ambush80 said:


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











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


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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.  


ambush80 said:


> 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 (May 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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.
> 
> 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)


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 8, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> 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?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 8, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Jul 8, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I can't think of one either.  I would be interested to see how religion informs this kind of question.





ambush80 said:


> 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 (Jul 9, 2018)

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.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 9, 2018)

660griz said:


> 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?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 9, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> 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?



Spotlite said:


> 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?


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 9, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> 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?



ambush80 said:


> 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.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 9, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 9, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> 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.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 9, 2018)

Spotlite said:


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



Especially the folks that wrote them.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 9, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Especially the folks that wrote them.



Like .......2 Peter 3:16...........


----------



## Israel (Jul 10, 2018)

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 (Jul 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


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



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.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2018)

660griz said:


> 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.


Instead of laying morals totally on the religious, I guess a fair question would be where do the non religious morally stand with eating human flesh?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 11, 2018)

I sometimes bite the inside of my cheek or my lips or bite my fingernails or a hangnail and sometimes instead of spitting, I swallow.  Is that cannibalism?  Technically it seems like it is.  How big of a piece of flesh does it have to be where it's "wrong"?  I've skinned a knuckle turning wrenches and bit off and swallowed that "hanging chad". If there's enough "meat" on it I usually spit it out but I'll often suck on the wound, swallowing some blood in the process in order to stop the bleeding.  What causes those different reactions? 

I can't put my finger on anything morally wrong with eating lab grown human meat.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 11, 2018)

I'm not looking for any human filets at the buffet, but if I'm stuck in the pass because of a blizzard nobody better be bragging about how tender their backside is...


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I'm not looking for any human filets at the buffet, but if I'm stuck in the pass because of a blizzard nobody better be bragging about how tender their backside is...



I hear ya.  This is mostly an exercise to determine how morals are defined.


----------



## Israel (Jul 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I sometimes bite the inside of my cheek or my lips or bite my fingernails or a hangnail and sometimes instead of spitting, I swallow.  Is that cannibalism?  Technically it seems like it is.  How big of a piece of flesh does it have to be where it's "wrong"?  I've skinned a knuckle turning wrenches and bit off and swallowed that "hanging chad". If there's enough "meat" on it I usually spit it out but I'll often suck on the wound, swallowing some blood in the process in order to stop the bleeding.  What causes those different reactions?
> 
> I can't put my finger on anything morally wrong with eating lab grown human meat.


I think it's when you volunteer to help your demo guy with the same...


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I'm not looking for any human filets at the buffet, but if I'm stuck in the pass because of a blizzard nobody better be bragging about how tender their backside is...


Same here. I’m never saying I won’t, but it’ll be a “have to” situation. I like to think that I could eat leaves or grass first but......


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 11, 2018)

Israel said:


> I think it's when you volunteer to help your demo guy with the same...



Ok.  I get that, but I've consumed some blood of an old girlfriend who had busted her lip while skiing.  Cannibalism?  

How about lab grown human meat?  Is it wrong to eat?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 11, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Instead of laying morals totally on the religious, I guess a fair question would be where do the non religious morally stand with eating human flesh?



Always good to check our answers with the folks who have an objective moral code handed down by an infallible creator of the universe.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Always good to check our answers with the folks who have an objective moral code handed down by an infallible creator of the universe.


Lol ok. I guess you gotta do what you gotta do when you’re not sure.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 11, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Ok.  I get that, but I've consumed some blood of an old girlfriend who had busted her lip while skiing.  Cannibalism?
> 
> How about lab grown human meat?  Is it wrong to eat?


Vampire.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I sometimes bite the inside of my cheek or my lips or bite my fingernails or a hangnail and sometimes instead of spitting, I swallow.  Is that cannibalism?


 No, that is just nasty. Stop it. 


> How big of a piece of flesh does it have to be where it's "wrong"?


 Not sure it is wrong. Folks gotta eat. Finding fresh legal human meat may be a bigger issue...in the U.S. anyway. 





> I've skinned a knuckle turning wrenches and bit off and swallowed that "hanging chad".


 Once again, stop that. 


> If there's enough "meat" on it I usually spit it out but I'll often suck on the wound, swallowing some blood in the process in order to stop the bleeding.  What causes those different reactions?


 Maybe because it is raw. Try to keep the grill going while you are working on the car. It may be better with a little sear.



> I can't put my finger on anything morally wrong with eating lab grown human meat.


Nothing I can think of either. Now, are we growing human meat for consumption? That could be a whole different ball game.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 12, 2018)

Yeah I would have to question intentionally growing human meat for consumption.Why human meat? Of all the meat to intentionally grow, there is something a bit twisted about choosing it to be human.


> I can't put my finger on anything morally wrong with eating lab grown human meat.





> Nothing I can think of either. Now, are we growing human meat for consumption? That could be a whole different ball game.


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I would have to question intentionally growing human meat for consumption.Why human meat? Of all the meat to intentionally grow, there is something a bit twisted about choosing it to be human.



Conquest? Lust?


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2018)

is man consumed of his own self?


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2018)

self extinguishing?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 12, 2018)

Israel said:


> Conquest? Lust?


Mental illness? 
Hunger?
Dare?
Curiosity?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I would have to question intentionally growing human meat for consumption.Why human meat? Of all the meat to intentionally grow, there is something a bit twisted about choosing it to be human.




Is it "human"?  If it was grown in a lab but the DNA, the blueprint for the tissue growth is "human", is that human meat?  Is what they're growing at Memphis Meats "beef"?

http://www.memphismeats.com/

What if they mix the species to make a different kind of meat?  Beef with the cholesterol of chicken or some such? Shrimp as big as a duck?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 12, 2018)

What if human skin makes the BEST chicharonnes?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 12, 2018)

Uggh.

I started looking into this.  The disgust reflex is strong.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Is it "human"?  If it was grown in a lab but the DNA, the blueprint for the tissue growth is "human", is that human meat?  Is what they're growing at Memphis Meats "beef"?
> 
> http://www.memphismeats.com/
> 
> What if they mix the species to make a different kind of meat?  Beef with the cholesterol of chicken or some such? Shrimp as big as a duck?


I think "is it human" is a different question. Previously you had stated "lab grown human meat".
As far as how morality enters into the subject, I think we are in a new "realm" here.
If it is indeed human meat I think existing morality standards would come in to play.
If some sort of human cell/DNA/etc is but an ingredient to create "something else" then I think that would be the new realm that existing societal morality doesn't address yet.
Personally, I have 0 problems with the Donner party etc. chowing down on already dead human folks. In fact some of them waited too long to do so and "morality" cost them their lives.
But to intentionally grow/create human burgers for consumption just for the heck of it is an entirely different matter.


----------



## ky55 (Jul 12, 2018)

Y’all stop by this evening. 
I’ve got a couple of butts on the smoker. 

.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 12, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I think "is it human" is a different question. Previously you had stated "lab grown human meat".
> As far as how morality enters into the subject, I think we are in a new "realm" here.
> If it is indeed human meat I think existing morality standards would come in to play.
> If some sort of human cell/DNA/etc is but an ingredient to create "something else" then I think that would be the new realm that existing societal morality doesn't address yet.
> ...



It is indeed a new realm.  That's kind of the crux of this question.  It's also why I'm interested to know how religious people answer it through the lens of their doctrines.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 12, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Y’all stop by this evening.
> I’ve got a couple of butts on the smoker.
> 
> .



What time?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


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



People with a dog's IQ level? Brother, that ship has sailed a long time ago.


----------



## ky55 (Jul 12, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What time?



About 6. 
BYOB


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 12, 2018)

ky55 said:


> About 6.
> BYOB



Rain check.  My Momma wants to play poker tonight so I lined up a game


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2018)

660griz said:


> Mental illness?
> Hunger?
> Dare?
> Curiosity?


I take your responses more to the "why would anyone eat (or _desire to_) human flesh?" question. 
I think Walt was more getting at the "why would anyone undertake to specifically  re-create human flesh for consumption out of all the other possible options?" (I do want to try a "Beyond Meat" burger)

But hey, lotsa things have been undertaken to profit by human curiosity. Maybe even to _cater to_ mental illness.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2018)

Jeffrey Dahmer had an interesting reply regarding his cannibalism. Investigators found trays of ice cubes in his freezer. Some were just frozen water and some were frozen water with a male genitalia part in the middle. When asked why some had and some did not...he replied "Sometimes ya feel like a nut, sometimes ya don't ".
The makers of mounds and almond joy thought it had a catchy and familiar ring to it.


----------



## ky55 (Jul 12, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Jeffrey Dahmer had an interesting reply regarding his cannibalism. Investigators found trays of ice cubes in his freezer. Some were just frozen water and some were frozen water with a male genitalia part in the middle. When asked why some had and some did not...he replied "Sometimes ya feel like a nut, sometimes ya don't ".
> The makers of mounds and almond joy thought it had a catchy and familiar ring to it.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2018)

Israel said:


> I take your responses more to the "why would anyone eat (or _desire to_) human flesh?" question.


I think they fit 'grow to eat' pretty well. I can't think of any logical reason to grow cow people when you have cows.
Unless you had to get meat past beef/pork/chicken/turtle/turkey/rabbit/etc., sniffing dogs.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 13, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Instead of laying morals totally on the religious, I guess a fair question would be where do the non religious morally stand with eating human flesh?



Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. We(atheist) have been told that morality can only come from God.

I don't see that act of eating human flesh to have any moral or ethical issues.
I look at more of why you are eating human flesh.
Plane crash on top of a mountain, some of your soccer buddies didn't make it. Weeks go by, they are just laying there, dead and preserved by the cold. Eat!

Catching and fattening up folks in the basement because you prefer human flesh. No! (Smack you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.)

You have the hero running around saying "Eat me!" 
Strange fellow you worship.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2018)

660griz said:


> Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. We(atheist) have been told that morality can only come from God.
> 
> I don't see that act of eating human flesh to have any moral or ethical issues.
> I look at more of why you are eating human flesh.
> ...


So..........are you saying that atheist don’t have morals? Or do we just disagree on where morals come from?

Yea we realize that there are those that don’t know what that means, and there are those that intentionally pervert the Gospel........either way, it’s not the Christian trying to figure out how to grow meat in a lab


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 13, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> So..........are you saying that atheist don’t have morals? Or do we just disagree on where morals come from?
> 
> Yea we realize that there are those that don’t know what that means, and there are those that intentionally pervert the Gospel........either way, it’s not the Christian trying to figure out how to grow meat in a lab


And why not?
Jesus supposedly came up with a solution on how to feed the masses.
Im guessing some of those starving folks in 3rd world countries wouldn't mind a "meat" burger to go along with the Bibles that Christians hand out to them.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And why not?
> Jesus supposedly came up with a solution on how to feed the masses.
> Im guessing some of those starving folks in 3rd world countries wouldn't mind a "meat" burger to go along with the Bibles that Christians hand out to them.



Lab meat would be ok if it’s cost affective, but why human meat, or anything to do with human DNA?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 13, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Lab meat would be ok if it’s cost affective, but why human meat, or anything to do with human DNA?


First - You didn't specify human meat so I just took it as generic "meat". That might be my fault.
But it does raise a question -
If science had to use human "something" whatever that something may be (cell/DNA/whatever) and the end result was going to be the ability to feed millions of starving folks and I don't mean hungry, I mean starving, then what?
Folks literally starving to death is a fact.
Not eating meat that contains "anything human" would be a moral issue.
Who/what should win? (assuming human "something" HAD to be part of the ingredients)
Gets pretty complicated.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 13, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> First - You didn't specify human meat so I just took it as generic "meat". That might be my fault.
> But it does raise a question -
> If science had to use human "something" whatever that something may be (cell/DNA/whatever) and the end result was going to be the ability to feed millions of starving folks and I don't mean hungry, I mean starving, then what?
> Folks literally starving to death is a fact.
> ...


No I didn’t really specify, but my thought process was human meat so you’re not at fault there. But your questioning of it pointed out that lab meat should be considered.

I agree that it’s complicated. Personally, I wouldn’t have an issue. I believe that since we are human, we should exhaust other attempts using “anything” from beef, pork, fish, etc before we rely on the human “anything”. Just my opinion.

To me, lab grown would be in the same category as imitation crab meat.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 13, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> No I didn’t really specify, but my thought process was human meat so you’re not at fault there. But your questioning of it pointed out that lab meat should be considered.
> 
> I agree that it’s complicated. Personally, I wouldn’t have an issue. I believe that since we are human, we should exhaust other attempts using “anything” from beef, pork, fish, etc before we rely on the human “anything”. Just my opinion.
> 
> To me, lab grown would be in the same category as imitation crab meat.


Yeah I would agree that using human "anything" should be the last resort. But even that can get complicated. I don't think science would exhaust ALL other possibilities first and then try human "anything". I think science would probably be testing human "anything" at the same time they were trying all the other "anythings".
So then the question becomes if we discover human "anything" works right now today, how long do we wait until all the other "anythings" are tested etc?
What if that takes years? decades? 
Is it moral to allow some number, which could be a BIG number, of folks to starve to death because we view it as immoral to eat human "anything"?
And imitation crab meat is one of the nastiest things Ive ever attempted to eat 
Hopefully this all hypothetical and would never get to this point. Considering we are animals I would think anything that came from humans could be gotten from other animals.


----------



## Israel (Jul 14, 2018)




----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 16, 2018)

Fish commonly eat other fish of their own species. Snakes commonly eat other snakes, insects eat their own species, etc. Chickens love fried chicken. It's a constant in nature. Why are we different? Not that I want to eat long pork, but cannibalism is very common in the animal world.


----------



## Israel (Jul 16, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Fish commonly eat other fish of their own species. Snakes commonly eat other snakes, insects eat their own species, etc. Chickens love fried chicken. It's a constant in nature. Why are we different? Not that I want to eat long pork, but cannibalism is very common in the animal world.



That's a question!


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 16, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Fish commonly eat other fish of their own species. Snakes commonly eat other snakes, insects eat their own species, etc. Chickens love fried chicken. It's a constant in nature. Why are we different? Not that I want to eat long pork, but cannibalism is very common in the animal world.


I honestly think its pretty simple -
We don't have to. Since we don't have to then we can  afford to apply all the "is it right or wrong. moral or immoral" stuff.
When we have to, history has shown that we do/will.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 16, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Fish commonly eat other fish of their own species. Snakes commonly eat other snakes, insects eat their own species, etc. Chickens love fried chicken. It's a constant in nature. Why are we different? Not that I want to eat long pork, but cannibalism is very common in the animal world.


The animal world yes.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> The animal world yes.





> Humans are classified as animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is mammalia. It's order is primate (the same as apes). It's family is Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is Homininae. It's tribe is Hominini. It's genus is Homo and it's specie is scientifically named Homo Sapiens.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


>


IF evolution is correct


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 16, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> IF evolution is correct


Yes, if God **poofed** us here I guess we would be none of those.
Well, I guess we would be Chordatas cuz we have a vertebrate.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2018)

God poofed 99% of human, bonobo and chimp DNA the same too.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 16, 2018)

I think they re-evaluated that to a lower percentage. Either way, they other 5% of the good stuff is what God used to finish us with


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I think they re-evaluated that to a lower percentage. Either way, they other 5% of the good stuff is what God used to finish us with


Re-evaluated...lolol
Whatever helps you sleep at night...


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 17, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Re-evaluated...lolol
> Whatever helps you sleep at night...



I guess we all eat bananas, bleed, grow hair and teeth, and some climb trees better than others. But it appears we may not be as close as some want to believe. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-human-chimp-dna-difference-trebled/

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/01/fake_science_ab/



https://www.scientificamerican.com/...humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 17, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I guess we all eat bananas, bleed, grow hair and teeth, and some climb trees better than others. But it appears we may not be as close as some want to believe.
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-human-chimp-dna-difference-trebled/
> 
> ...


Don't get too overjoyed 
Don't overlook the fact that the argument is not whether we are related.... its what is the accurate % of our relation.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 17, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Don't get too overjoyed
> Don't overlook the fact that the argument is not whether we are related.... its what is the accurate % of our relation.


Of course, God created all of us


----------

