Posted on 09/25/2019 8:12:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Dostoevsky once said, "If God didn't exist, everything is possible." There is wisdom in his observation since, without God, there would be nothing to serve as the ultimate reference for human acts. The eternal law that God established in the universe is inscribed on the human heart. Thus, everyone at all times and places knows right and wrong. Take away God, and all will fall into the most barbaric savagery.
Modern secular society officially denies that God exists. Thus, society comes to accept the cruelest practices by breaking down the natural repugnance that comes from transgressing God’s law. Abortion and infanticide, for example, used to incite horror among civilized people. Now, it is accepted everywhere. Some taboos remain, but these are now being questioned. Indeed, few could imagine that a mainstream news magazine like Newsweek would propose rethinking the idea of cannibalism.
Eating Flesh: The Ultimate Taboo
Eating human flesh is the subject of a feature article. Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of England’s Lancaster University declare there is nothing unethical or unreasonable about the practice. The problem with cannibalism is people’s attitudes since they are often “overridden by our feelings of repulsion and disgust.”
The reasoning behind the outlandish conclusion reveals the atheistic premises of the authors and the scientific establishment. The main title of the article says it all: “Cannibalism is common in the animal kingdom.” Thus, there is no logical reason why it should not be allowed for humans. Living creatures from spadefoot tadpoles, praying mantises, chimpanzees to lions cannibalize their own. The human is just another animal like all others.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
“When there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.”
PING!
Even in the animal kingdom, when attempted on another living member of your species, you’re can expect a big fight. The moral message in that innate fight for life went right past these really smart PhD guys.
Well besides the moral argument, eating human flesh isn’t exactly healthy for you.
<< The eternal law that God established in the universe is inscribed on the human heart. Thus, everyone at all times and places knows right and wrong. >>
Not those who reject God from their hearts.
Is that like taking it up the ass?
Ever hear of Kuru
1st Cannibal: I really don’t like my mother-in-law
2nd Cannibal: Well, then just eat the vegetables.
Reminds me of the forgotten Burt Reynolds movie SKULLDUGGERY from 1970,in which semi-human apes (Tropis)are used as workers in a phosphate mine. Their pay was one can of SPAM for each load.
Then the local natives found the “Tropis good!” to eat.
Interviewer to native: “Do you eat Tropis?”
Native: “Tropi Good!”
Interviewer to native: “Are you a Cannibal?”
Native(Offended): “ME METHODIST!”
So Burt Reynolds sets out to prove they are “human”.
Since I have not seen this movie since 1970, it has stayed in my mind.
This is hysterical. I kind of knew this was coming. It was sort of satirical to think about, but it just made some kind of ridiculous sense for the left to start defending cannibalism as an alternative lifestyle. I mean, we can’t be judgmental..
SMOD, please
I’m done for, I’ve got a gammy leg . . . .
Whenever I read something about cannibalism, I am reminded of the old joke about why cannibals don’t eat clowns.
I have read before, and this article refers to it, that cannibalism can be justified because of “climate change.” So there you go. I am guessing that all kinds of destructive and barbaric, anti-human practices can be recommended as necessary to save the planet and, unless this nonsense is headed off, we are headed to a very dark place.
I presume that to get over the gag factor about cannibalism, we won’t consume our neighbors in the form of chops or steaks or sausages, but in some kind of rendered product. Maybe like Soylent Green?
ROFL
So when do they propose eating another human? After they’ve died? From disease, a traffic accident, like road kill? Or do they think it’s ok to kill people for food? These fools are trying to sound so scientific as if we are just animals and it’s just psychological that this would disgust us.
Just curious if they even thought that far. The reason we are different than animals is because we have a conscience (for the most part) and understand killing is wrong. Period. Fools. They are idiots.
Like the smattering of articles attempting to normalize pedophilia.
Crazy. They try to compare us to animals who eat their own species. Well, those animals hunt and kill. They don’t eat a diseased corps. Do they suggest we hunt and kill each other as food because a praying mantis or a lion does it?
Hillary does. /rim shot>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.