Watching that Andes 1972 wreck movie. Some limited googling and I'm not convinced God wants us to eat each other even if for survival…………..kind of off limits?????

Thoughts?

Yep. I'm gonna starve before I eat someone.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

no harvesting organs

---

Why should living people die when we have the ability to help with organs that are going to rot away to nothing in days?

---

1. Because you're cutting up a person who is sleeping and taking their body parts.
2. I don't like the view that we're simply machines that break down every now and need new parts to get going again.

I believe that in the case of the Andes incident, many of the people did give their consent to be eaten if they die. Do you think that changes anything?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I believe that in the case of the Andes incident, many of the people did give their consent to be eaten if they die. Do you think that changes anything?

---

No. First, I don't see how consent even matters. If they're dead, they can't experience any apparent wrong you do to their body. Second, why wait to eat humans for survival? I would assume if it was socially acceptable and had health benefits, there wouldn't be an objection to eat them now.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Instinct takes over at a certain point. Assuming there are no other options at all, why would preserving life be wrong?

---

I'm curious about your mindset: what value does your life (or anyone else's) have, in the grand scheme of things? What's one life or two billion (assuming it's some future cancer curer instead) in the scheme of randomness and chaos?

Sapper Redux said:

---

If it will be renewed, then why does it matter if an organ that is going to rot will be used to help preserve life? Your argument doesn't make sense. A person who is blown to pieces is going to be given a renewed body, why can't a person who donated their heart?

---

1. Because you are not handling the body by faith that it is sleeping.
2. You are treating the body like a donor car.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Instinct takes over at a certain point. Assuming there are no other options at all, why would preserving life be wrong?

---

I'm curious about your mindset: what value does your life (or anyone else's) have, in the grand scheme of things? What's one life or two billion (assuming it's some future cancer curer instead) in the scheme of randomness and chaos?

---

Why do you have to have God for life to have meaning? We are alive, we are sentient, we are capable of feeling and learning and experiencing life. That's enough to give it value to me and to recognize that value in others.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Guys. . . for the record, if I die and your survival depends on eating me, you have my permission to eat me. Just be sure to clean your plates.

---

Bro, not happening unless they magically stock A1 on that aircraft and the bottle survives.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Instinct takes over at a certain point. Assuming there are no other options at all, why would preserving life be wrong?

---

I'm curious about your mindset: what value does your life (or anyone else's) have, in the grand scheme of things? What's one life or two billion (assuming it's some future cancer curer instead) in the scheme of randomness and chaos?

---

Why do you have to have God for life to have meaning? We are alive, we are sentient, we are capable of feeling and learning and experiencing life. That's enough to give it value to me and to recognize that value in others.

---

Well the context within which you talk about life is something more, like it has to go on and must continue. But it's not sentient, transcendent, or eternal is it? And while I understand the individual's desire to continue, there's not really a universal vested interest in it, is there?

The more I think about it, I'm good with it for survival. Yes God has made it clear we aren't animals and shouldn't act like it but I think if our intentions are clear and not evil, he understands that he built in us a desire to survive.

Just not a whole lot about it with a simple google search on what the Bible says………

Magneto said:

---

Watching that Andes 1972 wreck movie. Some limited googling and I'm not convinced God wants us to eat each other even if for survival…………..kind of off limits?????

Thoughts?

---

Don't know since they're are numerous scriptures about eating the flesh of others in the Bible but they all seem to be in the context of murder and don't mention extreme extenuating circumstances. Its also fine if we donate our organs after we die. I'm not sure where I fall in a case of very specific circumstances but don't think I would do it....(unless I there happen to be some Valentino's sauce around...)

I'm really glad I don't have to worry about this because I am nearly 100% certain that my survival instinct is so low that I would be one of the first to die.

If we are voting, I lean more on MQB's side than the other. I think we treat our bodies as way more disposable than they are..its bad theology. Bodily resurrection is real and we should treat our bodies as though we expect to get them back. However, I think this is a situation that requires grace and compassion.

And also I have a lot of conspiracy hat feelings about the people doing organ harvesting and that whole industry..

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I'm really glad I don't have to worry about this because I am nearly 100% certain that my survival instinct is so low that I would be one of the first to die.

If we are voting, I lean more on MQB's side than the other. I think we treat our bodies as way more disposable than they are..its bad theology. Bodily resurrection is real and we should treat our bodies as though we expect to get them back. However, I think this is a situation that requires grace and compassion.

And also I have a lot of conspiracy hat feelings about the people doing organ harvesting and that whole industry..

---

Indeed! I don't even want to be tenderized here under the best of circumstances.

I mean, I'd be one of those people that if I even manage to kill or find a dead polar bear to eat, I'd accidentally eat the liver and die of vitamin a(?) overdose.

For those on the side against cannibalism in all cases on the grounds that those that are saved will be resurrected with their bodies. . .

Am I thinking about the question incorrectly or too pragmatically when I ask 'What obstacle could cannibalism possibly be for God in resurrecting someone with their body?" People can die from being burnt, exploded, torn apart, eaten by animals, or far far worse. If a body is buried, the body can be eaten by maggots and decomposed by bacteria.

It just seems that no matter what, when we die, the material and the flesh we are made of inevitably suffers a 'violation' far worse than what we are talking about. But, we don't consider those to be obstacles for God to resurrect that person in Heaven with their body, do we?

The idea that what happens to our bodies in this life affects our body in some life beyond this feels almost materialistic. Or maybe, it feels like an attachment to the material that doesn't match my understanding of what Christians belief. It all reminds more like the ancient religions that would buried loved ones with food and gifts and weapons and other items for them to use in the next life. Or like cultures that would wrap or mummify their loved ones to slow the decay process.

Just thinking out loud, appreciate any responses.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I mean, I'd be one of those people that if I even manage to kill or find a dead polar bear to eat, I'd accidentally eat the liver and die of vitamin a(?) overdose.

---

You could just eat some meat and bury part of the carcass to grow your greens like the Inuit. Feel like that would last you a good while.

This is a great question and it totally makes sense to ask! It's questions like these that make me think that it's important to practice things! The way we treat our dead is a testimony of our beliefs! We believe that our bodies are just asleep in Christ and will be resurrected. It's not a question of "if" God can return them to whole, because of course He can! However, we are not the gnostics who believe that God is simply a spirit and only our souls are "us". Christ came to flesh! God and man in one. Likewise, we will be reunited with our body in Heaven at the end of days. When we practice our faith in realistic way that reflects this, we are less likely to lose sight of those things. Correct practice reinforces correct theology.

I don't believe that preserving the body does anything to "help" God out with the body, but rather, it's a practice to demonstrate that and pay respect to my faith in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.


In the words of children, we do it so that you'll ask that question.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

For those on the side against cannibalism in all cases on the grounds that those that are saved will be resurrected with their bodies. . .

Am I thinking about the question incorrectly or too pragmatically when I ask 'What obstacle could cannibalism possibly be for God in resurrecting someone with their body?" People can die from being burnt, exploded, torn apart, eaten by animals, or far far worse. If a body is buried, the body can be eaten by maggots and decomposed by bacteria.

It just seems that no matter what, when we die, the material and the flesh we are made of inevitably suffers a 'violation' far worse than what we are talking about. But, we don't consider those to be obstacles for God to resurrect that person in Heaven with their body, do we?

The idea that what happens to our bodies in this life affects our body in some life beyond this feels almost materialistic. Or maybe, it feels like an attachment to the material that doesn't match my understanding of what Christians belief. It all reminds more like the ancient religions that would buried loved ones with food and gifts and weapons and other items for them to use in the next life. Or like cultures that would wrap or mummify their loved ones to slow the decay process.

Just thinking out loud, appreciate any responses.

---

I love the logic on this first few paragraphs. Maggots, cannibals, fires, explosions, digestion, decay, would not be obstacles to God in any form or fashion.

From a biblical perspective I believe that a person's body is resurrected in the end. Jesus' was. He was fully resurrected and yet capable is displaying holes in His hands. In many of His miracles He's healing birth defects and restoring lame limbs.

What does our bodily resurrection fully look like in case of an explosion or consumption? I have no idea, however, he's given me enough reason to trust in His abilities.

35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

Quote:

---

1. They aren't sleeping. They're dead. Their body has ceased to function. Their organs are going to rot away rapidly if left alone. Even if you believe they will be resurrected, it won't be in their current body. I shudder to think what a burn victim would go through if their resurrected body was just a continuation of their mortal body, complete with functional nervous system.

---

This view of a burn victim being eternally traumatized in Heaven is not biblically supported.

3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

5 And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He *said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true."

Our primary example of the resurrection is Jesus. Post resurrection, was there any indication the He was physically reliving the crucifixion moment by moment in His interaction with others?