In Defense of Infant Cannibalism

Posted 29 December, 2005 - 06:20 by justinbaeder

While some within the emerging movement have renounced infant cannibalism, I think it’s time to reconsider the arguments being presented in light of the differences between the culture of our day and the cultures that existed in Bible times.

It has long been assumed in the "civilized" West that infant cannibalism is wrong. Of course, a healthy child should not be eaten except under the most extreme circumstances (e.g. Irish potatoe famine, as our friends at Addison Road point out). But is it really fair to continue to assume and assert that eating the very young is wrong under all circumstances?

The Old Testament is quite clear on this matter - the ancient Hebrews were not to sacrifice, and thus eat, their young (2 Kings 16:2-3, Jer. 7:30-31, Jer. 32:35, Ps. 106:37-39). However, the language used is not specific enough to condemn all child-eating, particularly that done in the right context, and with the right motives.

God’s primary concern in prohibiting child sacrifice was to discourage the adoption of pagan practices, which would distract the Israelites from their worship of the one true God. We can also safely assume that the widespread consumption of infants would lead to the murder of infants, since the number that died naturally would not be sufficient to meet the demand. So, God’s prohibition against consuming infant flesh was founded on two very sensible premises:

1. Infant cannibalism would lead Israel into idolatry

2. Infant cannibalism would result in harm to living infants

Are these premises valid today, and should we still abstain from infant cannibalism? First, let me say that I’m not talking about gratuitous, pig-out infant cannibalism, just as I don’t advocate eating a whole bag of chips at one sitting. I’m talking about moderate, civilized infant cannibalism (which I prefer to call fetal consumption), much as one might eat caviar - occasionally, responsibly, and with the utmost tact and taste.

The Bible may condemn child sacrifice and pagan cannibalism, but those are quite different from modern fetal consumption, which was not known in the days of Moses or Paul. Today, we have a steady supply of deceased infant flesh, from a variety of legitimate sources, which I need not enumerate. Suffice it to say that, if prices were fixed at a fairly high level, say, $10 per ounce, the demand could be met without difficulty, and there would be no risk to living children. The same medical technology that allows organs to be "kept on ice" until transplantation allows the flesh of our young to be preserved until it reaches the marketplace.

But why bother defending fetal consumption? Who is interested in it? The fact is, the Christians who are in favor of infant cannibalism have been ostracized from our churches. They have been forced to seek refuge and community elsewhere. There is tolerance for all other types of behavior with in the church, it seems, except infant cannibalism.

How long can we allow this hypocrisy to continue, while our alienated brothers and sisters in the faith are left outside in the cold, picking their teeth and longing to be let inside to warm their feet by the fire? Here and now, I am calling for an end to the outdated, judgmental taboo against infant cannibalism. Will you join me?

—-

I originally posted this on my blog without further comment, and I got a few positive remarks, but we didn’t really get into discussing the point of the post.

Obviously, this is a satirical post intended to elicit discussion about the process we use to determine whether a moral prohibition in the bible is applicable today. In the discussion on "A New Way to Dialogue About Homosexuality," I again encountered the argument that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were not an extant category in Paul’s day, nor was homosexuality recognized as a biologically influenced trait, therefore biblical injunctions against it are irrelevant.

I don’t mean to dismiss these arguments entirely, because I’m sure we’ve used similar arguments in other areas without realizing it. But I do want to call this line of reasoning into question. I will agree that the practice of monogamous homosexuals today is vastly more preferable in every way than the idol-worshipping, prostitution-based, commitment-free version familiar to Paul.

But how far can we take the argument that our culture has created a new version of some particular practice that falls outside of scripture’s jurisdiction? Is adultery OK if your spouse doesn’t mind? Watch TV today, and you see that this is more than a theoretical argument. We could easily argue that "consensual adultery" didn’t exist in Paul’s day, due to the level of stigma and shame surrounding extramarital relations; today, this stigma is largely absent in many cultures, so the bible’s statements on adultery are not relevant, because they’re addressing a different set of circumstances entirely.

I should point out that I am not attempting to articulate another argument against homosexuality. In far too many of the discussions on the subject, homosexual activity is treated as a sin different from all others. I am attempting to frame the debate in the same terms in which we discuss other topics of morality. I don’t think the argument I’ve described above (with infant cannibalism, monogamous homosexuality, and consensual adultery as examples) is a very good one. What do you think?

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Comments

Re: In Defense of Infant Cannibalism

by peter wilkinson - 30/12/2005 - 18:04

Justin - You may or may not be aware that there is a literary connection between your post and Jonathan Swift’s ‘A modest proposal’. The difference is that Swift was delivering, through the means of satire, a savage attack on English indifference to the sufferings of the Irish poor in the 18th century. You are criticising what you see as ethical double standards in the way we make ethical interpretations in the bible.

For you, the biblical testimony concerning same-sex genital activity points only one way, and there is nothing to suggest anywhere in the bible an approval of such behaviour.

The problem for the gay person goes somewhat deeper than sexual activity and behaviour, and is associated with issues of identity - who we are as sexual beings. If the biblical testimony is interpreted your way, then it is not merely sexual behaviour which is at issue, but sexual identity. The church has attempted to separate the two, but the fact is that if we condemn behaviour, we must also condemn the motivation which underlies the behaviour. Both are equally deviant, from an ethical point of view - if this is how we interpret the bible.

I say "your way" in the previous paragraph, because you cannot with integrity ignore the questions which have been raised concerning such an interpretation. That would be like having an argument without listening to a different point of view.

There needs to be some way of breaking this impasse, and it is not by watering down what the bible appears to be saying, but by asking questions, and dialoguing with those who hold a different viewpoint. Especially those whom we are arguing about.

The church will need to do much better than proclaim simplistic condemnations if it is to be believed and to have a message which has any relevance or meaning to those whom it condemns. My acquaintance with Christian people who are of a gay orientation suggests that they have a far more sensitive and searching moral awareness than many who have not had to wrestle with the agony of having a sense of identity which the the church and the bible appear to condemn.

The solution used to be to recommend such people to the counselling and care of ‘ex-gay’ movements and ministries. But we need to have some sense of historical perspective. While these became fashionable in the 70’s and 80’s, the long-term ‘cure’ that they seemed to offer is proving to be elusive. This is why there needs to be serious discussion of the church’s position, and what exactly we are offering to this people group. What exactly are we saying and offering to gay people?

Re: In Defense of Infant Cannibalism

by danutz - 30/12/2005 - 18:35

I believe that infant cannibalism should be allowed and is an act blessed by God.  I completely support the practice and would advocate legalization of the act.

There are just a couple of minor caveats that I would apply to the practice before I could support it…

1. the infant needs to be an adult of sound mind

2. the infant needs to conscent to the cannabalism

3. the infant needs to be unharmed by the cannabalism

4. the infant and cannabal need to first enter into a committed relationship and make vows to only participate in cannabalistic acts with each other.

If you can figure out how to meet those 4 requirements and still eat an infant, then go for it. I believe God will bless it.

Oh, by the way I would not support sex (either same sex or other sex) if it could not also meet those 4 requirements.

Re: In Defense of Infant Cannibalism

by drew27 - 09/01/2009 - 03:57

Well said.

Re: In Defense of Infant Cannibalism

by Stranger - 03/01/2006 - 00:35

Justinbaeder.  While I was entertained by your post, I found the article (‘why I am not emergent’) you linked to even more entertaining.  Where do you guys get this stuff?

Anyway, I thought I’d throw in a couple thoughts, for whatever they’re worth.  Your argument does a good job of highlighting the oversimplification of certain revisionist arguments.  It is (and I take this to be your point) absurd to think that the biblical writers were thinking specifically about certain kinds of infant cannibalism (and not others) when formulating their prohibition.  Similarly, the apostle Paul’s thoughts on marriage and monogamy cannot be said to concern solely cultures unlike our own.  And again, his thoughts on homosexuality cannot be reduced to the specific practices he had in mind when writing Romans (for example).

However, your argument unfortunately works against you.  Although you are correct in highlighting the absurdity of suggesting that infant cannibalism was prohibited only because it would lead Israel into Idolatry and because it would result in the death of live infants (and that therefore, other forms of it are ok), you fail to engage the deeper argument of the revisionists who raise points like these.  The basic idea is that temple prostitution and homosexuality (or idol worship and infant cannibalism if you prefer) were so linked in the minds of the biblical authors that they could not be separated.  And so the idea that the biblical authors were only making very specific prohibitions is incorrect (as your illustration demonstrates), but the idea that their prohibitions apply equally to different situations is incorrect as well.

While homosexuality and abusive prostitution may have been inseparable in the apostle’s mind (a claim I think has some credibility), they are separable in our minds.  The question then, is whether this raises new moral situations.  Rephrased, what is it specifically that is wrong with homosexuality?  Paul didn’t have to ask himself this question, but our new context forces the question on us.  Why is it prohibited, or portrayed negatively in Scripture?  If the answer is something which is not shared by modern-day homosexual relationships, then it follows that those relationships are not condemned by the Scriptures that condemn other behaviors (despite the similar label).

PastorPete’s 3 criteria over in the other thread, then, become a tool for answering the question of why something is right or wrong for a disciple of Jesus.  He is right to point out that the discussion of homosexuality in the Church must transcend the specific if it is to be relevant in our choices today.  In this case, the ‘specific’ is Paul’s teachings to a particular context.  The revisionist’s (and hopefully by now, it is understood that I do not mean this negatively) claim is that if Paul’s teachings do apply to homosexuals today, they apply by virtue of some larger principles which ground his advice.  The question is whether such principles exist.  On PastorPete’s principles (which are, I might add, very good principles to identify), homosexual marriages seem perfectly valid. 

This entire issue touches on the question of what makes anything right or wrong.  Unless one adopts a divine command theory of ethics (assuming that Paul’s advice represents God’s commands, of course), the morality of homosexuality is far more complex that some conservatives are making it out to be.

Am I making sense?

Peace,

-Daniel-

Re: In Defense of Infant Cannibalism

by justinbaeder - 14/01/2006 - 22:24

Thanks for the feedback. I forgot that I posted this here, or I would have participated in the discussion sooner.

Yes,
I did intend this as a variation on Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal.
Glad you saw both the similarities and the differences. I can’t claim
to have written this piece to the high standards of OST, since it
started out as just a blog post, so I’ll try to add a little more
substance after the fact.

The thrust of my argument, which I’m
sure has been both presented better by others and already discredited
by yet others, is that it’s silly to say we’ve invented a new type of
(fill in the blank) that is not subject to the apparently obvious
biblical prohibitions against it. There may be good reasons to reject the surface reading texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, but this is not one of them.

While I will refrain from
making this into yet-another discussion of whether homosexuality is
acceptable within the Christian community, I do want to continue to
address the hermeneutical issue I’ve raised, since others have
responded so thoughtfully.

I’m concerned with this particular tactic
because it seems to be totally invincible - we’re essentially saying
God cannot prohibit any new type of behavior we can think up; he’s
limited to banning the sins that people committed in bible times.
Moreover, we’re saying that God cannot even prohibit behaviors he has
already prohibited if we find an exempted or unaddressed context in
which to practice them. The more creative we are, in short, the more we can do whatever we want.

At this purely abstract level, I think
most people would agree this is not the best path to the will of God.
On a practical level, of course, it becomes more complicated,
especially when applied to such a sensitive topic.

peter w. said:

The problem for the gay person goes somewhat deeper than sexual
activity and behaviour, and is associated with issues of identity -
who we are as sexual beings. If the biblical testimony is interpreted
your way, then it is not merely sexual behaviour which is at issue, but
sexual identity. The church has attempted to separate the two, but the
fact is that if we condemn behaviour, we must also condemn the
motivation which underlies the behaviour. Both are equally deviant,
from an ethical point of view - if this is how we interpret the bible.

I
think the whole behavior/identity dichotomy illustrates how problematic
these categorical questions are. More and more Christians are saying
it’s not wrong to "be gay" in the sense of feeling primarily same-sex
attraction, but that it is wrong to act sexually on that attraction. As
you’ve pointed out, that doesn’t exactly make gay people feel better.
Rejection of behavior is seen as rejection of identity, and thus as
outright rejection of the person.

Here’s how the argument is tacitly framed: 

God (according to conservative Christians) says X is a sin, and thus rejects it as an acceptable behaviorI do X, intentionally and in good conscienceTherefore, your God rejects me, since I do something he has rejected

Paul disagrees, even in quite personal terms:

22For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self,
23but I see in my members another law at war with
the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in
my members.
24Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh
I am a slave to the law of sin.
8There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. Romans 7:22-8:2

In other words, we have identity backwards. Christ is to be the definition of our identity, and our behavior must not derive from our own self-determined identity, but from Christ’s. We are not what we do.

 

I will risk sounding like a fundamentalist to make this point: the homosexual lobby over the last 30 years has worked very hard to create this thing known as "sexual identity." No one had a sexual identity until at least the 1970s, and then suddenly everyone had one. I think it’s a valid construct, and useful in many ways, but we can’t allow it to become a bigger category than God.

But many of us have done just that. We’ve allowed this new paradigm to obscure Paul’s clear vision of a Christ-derived identity. This is precisely the point at which
conservatives throw up their hands and point out just how slippery a
slope we’re on when validating homosexual behavior within the church.
How can Christ have lordship over one’s life when he is so tightly boxed in?

The Gospel is usually often minimized in discussions of homosexuality, but I think it is more relevant here than ever: Grace trumps identity.

I’m starting to digress, so I’ll stop here. I want to respond to the other comments, which are excellent, but that’ll have to wait for later. Thanks for listening.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.