Real Cannibals discuss the person they ate and why

etrified:

Here some chitty-chat with real life cannibals:

Tomenable said:

etrified:

Here some chitty-chat with real life cannibals:

Click to expand...

At least they didn't say we taste like chicken...

I suppose we should be glad we're not very tasty.

It makes a bizarre sort of sense. The "sorcerer" eats the victim from the inside, so you eat the sorcerer to ingest your loved one and keep him with the tribe. Obviously this kind of belief has been part of the human psyche for a long time. It has its echos in the transubstantiation of the Christian Mass.

It's also a deep rooted human fear, of course. That partly explains the popularity of "zombie" flesh eating scenarios in fiction, film, and television, including my favorite, "The Walking Dead". I haven't missed a single episode.

Exactly!

They do have the same sense of morality as anyone else. One of these cannibals, at 3:37 of the video, said:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQLzz7qorws#t=3m37s

"Sorcerers see us as animals and so they prey on us. Normal people shouldn't eat each other, because we're all human."

What a statement coming from a cannibal!

Unfortunately they believe, that some "evil" people cause diseases of other people (and diseases "eat people").

These disease-causing guys are the "sorcerers" and they must be eaten, or they will magically "eat" others.

It's also a deep rooted human fear, of course. That partly explains the popularity of "zombie" flesh eating scenarios in fiction, film, and television, including my favorite, "The Walking Dead". I haven't missed a single episode.

Click to expand...

I'm also watching "The Walking Dead"! Great series! Also haven't missed a single episode.

Tomenable said:

Exactly!

They do have the same sense of morality as anyone else. One of these cannibals, at 3:37 of the video, said:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQLzz7qorws#t=3m37s

"Sorcerers see us as animals and so they prey on us. Normal people shouldn't eat each other, because we're all human."

What a statement coming from a cannibal!

Unfortunately they believe, that some "evil" people cause diseases of other people (and diseases "eat people").

These disease-causing guys are the "sorcerers" and they must be eaten, or they will magically "eat" others.



I'm also watching "The Walking Dead"! Great series! Also haven't missed a single episode.

Click to expand...

What does that say about us, Tomenable?

It's good to know, though. I'm the only one in my family or circle of women friends who is addicted to it. I was starting to feel a little lonely!

Angela said:

It makes a bizarre sort of sense. The "sorcerer" eats the victim from the inside, so you eat the sorcerer to ingest your loved one and keep him with the tribe. Obviously this kind of belief has been part of the human psyche for a long time. It has its echos in the transubstantiation of the Christian Mass.

Click to expand...

Communion is nothing like what these guys did. They're killing and eating sorcerers in self-defense. I never remember them saying they eat sorcerers from the inside to ingest loved ones that were killed by the sorcerers. Communion is purely symbolic of the sacrifice Jesus made of his flesh(bread) and blood(wine) on the Cross. Totally different.

Fire Haired14 said:

Communion is nothing like what these guys did. They're killing and eating sorcerers in self-defense. I never remember them saying they eat sorcerers from the inside to ingest loved ones that were killed by the sorcerers. Communion is purely symbolic of the sacrifice Jesus made of his flesh(bread) and blood(wine) on the Cross. Totally different.

Click to expand...

No, it's only Protestants who think Holy Communion is merely a symbolic re-enactment of the Last Supper. Conversely, Catholic dogma holds that the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Christ which congregants take into themselves. It's called the Miracle of Transubstantiation. Of course it's not the same as eating a human body; I never said otherwise.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

That's why I said it echoes it, just as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ echoes the Osiris cycle or the Death of the King in Greek religion and mythology. If you're a believer, you think that these other religious expressions pre-figured Christianity. If you're not you think Christianity just amalgamated and absorbed these archetypal myths.

Bible Verses About Holy Communion: I don't see anything explicitly saying the bread/wine literally becomes Jesus's flesh/blood instead of being symbolism. It says "this is the body and blood" but I couldn't find anything refuting it is symbolism. "Miracle of Transubstantiation" looks like one of several things the Catholic Church added on. You got to remember Protestantism is ultimately a rebellion against the add-ons of the Catholic Church.

I don't see a common mindset in Papuan Cannibals and Communion. The Papuans never mentioned consuming their family members via eating sorcerers. All they said is eating sorcerers is the correct form of rev against sorcerers. So, where's the similarity?

Angela said:

That's why I said it echoes it, just as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ echoes the Osiris cycle or the Death of the King in Greek religion and mythology. If you're a believer, you think that these other religious expressions pre-figured Christianity. If you're not you think Christianity just amalgamated and absorbed these archetypal myths.

Click to expand...

That's a stretch. Why would several differnt people create nearly identical stories and belies, knew Jesus personally, etc. straight up lie and life/die for a lie? Why would Matthew be impaled for a lie that he made up? Just doesn't make sense. Christianity wasn't a gradual cultural development we can see it's existence a few short generations after Jesus's birth. Sure if it was a gradual cultural development you could say, "well they borrowed from this neighboring culture, etc.". But that isn't the case.

Fire Haired14 said:

That's a stretch. Why would several differnt people create nearly identical stories and belies, knew Jesus personally, etc. straight up lie and life/die for a lie? Why would Matthew be impaled for a lie that he made up? Just doesn't make sense. Christianity wasn't a gradual cultural development we can see it's existence a few short generations after Jesus's birth. Sure if it was a gradual cultural development you could say, "well they borrowed from this neighboring culture, etc.". But that isn't the case.

Click to expand...

I agree with Angela, the idea is the same, just different form.

Fire Haired14 said:

That's a stretch. Why would several differnt people create nearly identical stories and belies, knew Jesus personally, etc. straight up lie and life/die for a lie? Why would Matthew be impaled for a lie that he made up? Just doesn't make sense. Christianity wasn't a gradual cultural development we can see it's existence a few short generations after Jesus's birth. Sure if it was a gradual cultural development you could say, "well they borrowed from this neighboring culture, etc.". But that isn't the case.

Click to expand...

Fire-Haired, you just can't ignore all we know of the ancient religions of the Near East. If you're interested, there's an excellent series from PBS where Bill Moyers interviews Joseph Campbell about all these matters. It can be found on youtube. This is just one short snippet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy7xl5dmUc4

The greatest source book for all of this is "The Golden Bough" by Frazier. It's a monumental, seminal, and for me, incredibly fascinating read, one of the most impactful books I've ever studied. I still turn to to it from time to time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough


It isn't my purpose to try to argue you out of your faith, or to convince you of the intellectual superiority of Roman Catholic theology and dogma. I was just trying to clarify the issues and differences. Believe as you wish; as they say, it's a free country. However, if you're going to believe in Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior, you have to accept that all these other myths and religious manifestations were a pre-figuration, because they exist, and there are many similarities.

LeBrok said:

I agree with Angela, the idea is the same, just different form.

Click to expand...

How? Papuans are eating scorers because of revenge. Christians do communion as symbolism of Jesus's sacrifice to forgive sins. I don't see any similarity.

Fire-Haired, watch the clip again. It's not just about punishment. It's to regain, to incorporate into oneself the "soul", if you will, of the loved one, which is now in the sorcerer. Of course, this is totally wrong headed and awful.

However, on a different level, it's just another example of a yearning that is expressed in myths throughout the world, and that at one time, as with these people today, was concretely expressed or acted out.

Think of myth as a poetical expression of a truth behind the veil, if you like, a poetry that in some religious traditions becomes "real" if no longer actualized.

You seem to be Protestant, so Mary iconography is not part of your tradition, but it was part of mine.

Look at this representation of Isis with Horus. A clearer example of prefiguration could scarcely be conceived, according to my theology instructors. Again, you could also argue it's wholesale appropriation. It's all in how you look at it.



Or look at Osiris and the resurrection of the dead:

@Angela,

Lots of women hold babies. Making Jesus into a 8 year old kid instead of a baby is art and not apart of Christian theology. Anyways, I don't see reason to believe communion is nothing more than symbolic and spiritual. I don't see anything especially similar to what these Papuans do. You don't become Christian by consuming bread/wine, it isn't like "Oh, now God's spirit for the first time lives in you.". No that isn't the idea. But that is the idea of what the Papuans are doing.

I don't know how much more clearly this could be said:

Matthew 26: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

You can't write it out of the scripture because it makes you uncomfortable. Whether or not you believe that Christ's body and blood are truly present in the form of bread and wine, or whether you believe it has a strictly symbolic meaning, it is still an echo of a ritual practice as old as man.

Jesus becomes the blood sacrifice, the lamb, and as was always done, you eat the sacrifice. By eating it, it becomes part of your essence. If you're a believer, this is all pre-figured in the Old Testament, but also in mysteries and myths from around the world.

That doesn't mean that Christians are cannibals.

This is a short explanation. Perhaps he says it more clearly than I do.

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/ap...ic-apologetics/202-eucharist-cannibalism.html

Or this:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2011/08/06/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism/

@Angela,

Here's how they're differnt.

Spiritual vs physical
>The bread and wine become Jesus's body/blood spiritually not physically. Bible never refutes bread/wine is purely symbolism of Jesus's sacrifice or only spiritual. We know at least it doesn't literally mean the bread/wine was Jesus's Body/blood. So, there's at least some non-literal language going on.
>Papuans eat scorers physical body.

Revenge vs Sacrifice
>Eating bread/wine is reference to Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.
>Papuans are eating scorers in revenge. It's justified by an eye for eye mentality.

Different type of spirituality
>Eating bread/wine, is saying "This is remembrance, that Jesus gave body and blood to me I can be a child of God and have eternal life."
>Papuans are saying "I eat a scorer who ate another person, for revenge and to take that other person's spirit out of the scorer's body."

Here's more. Bible Verses About Holy Communion.

Jesus quotes from Last Supper.
Luke 22:19 - 22 "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
Matthew 26:26 - 26 "Take, eat; this is my body. Drink ye all of it; or this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

John 6:53 - 6:58: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

John 6:51 - "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

The bread/wine is referenced as bread/wine several times. It is quite clear the bread/wine doesn't literally become flesh/blood. The reference/symbolism towards cross is very clear. Bread/wine is spiritual receptor/reminder in the same sense that church is. Someone who doesn't believe in Jesus who partakes in communion isn't receiving anything. The bread/wine isn't what puts Jesus's spirit into someone, like Papuans believe eating flesh of sorcers is THE thing that brings the spirits of dead loved ones into them.

1 Corinthians 11 "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

Where did I ever say that they're the same? Did you read the articles to which I linked? You're entirely missing the point.

As for your take on the nature and meaning of the Eucharist, I'm very familiar with it. It is, however, a minority view, different from that of not only Roman Catholics but Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans. (minus some minor differences) Of course, you're entitled to believe as you choose.

For your own personal knowledge, you might be interested in the following, but I'm afraid any further discussion of it is pretty far off topic for this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology

Angela said:

Where did I ever say that they're the same? Did you read the articles to which I linked? You're entirely missing the point.

As for your take on the nature and meaning of the Eucharist, I'm very familiar with it. It is, however, a minority view, different from that of not only Roman Catholics but Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans. (minus some minor differences) Of course, you're entitled to believe as you choose.

For your own personal knowledge, you might be interested in the following, but I'm afraid any further discussion of it is pretty far off topic for this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theology

Click to expand...

I really don't see how that view is differnt from my own. There's certainly symbolism and non-literally language when Gospels describe communion. No one believes it literally, physically becomes Jesus's body and blood. Everyone believes spiritually in one way or another it does and that it references the cross.

Fire Haired14 said:

I really don't see how that view is differnt from my own. There's certainly symbolism and non-literally language when Gospels describe communion. No one believes it literally, physically becomes Jesus's body and blood. Everyone believes spiritually in one way or another it does and that it references the cross.

Click to expand...

I meant that I never said there wasn't a difference between cannibalism in pre-history or in isolated pockets today, and the mysteries of the Eucharist.

The point is that part of the power of Christianity is that it has either amalgamated and absorbed most of the ancient myths of western Eurasia, myths that speak to the deepest yearnings of the human psyche, and sometimes to ancient practices as well, or those myths pre-figured the coming of Christ, who embodies all those yearnings. It all depends on your point of view.

As for the differences in Eucharistic theology, they are profound, despite the fact that in neither case is a human body being consumed. In one tradition, the Eucharist is a sacrament, a mystical experience where the bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in the other it's just an act of remembrance of the last supper. In one tradition it is the central act of the worship service, indeed of the Christian life, and in the other it is not even done all that frequently.

As I said, the differences are profound.

Angela said:

The point is that part of the power of Christianity is that it has either amalgamated and absorbed most of the ancient myths of western Eurasia, myths that speak to the deepest yearnings of the human psyche, and sometimes to ancient practices as well, or those myths pre-figured the coming of Christ, who embodies all those yearnings. It all depends on your point of view.

Click to expand...

Saying Ancient Myths of West Eurasia is like saying Ancient Myths of Earth. Your view of Christianity commonly absorbing/copying other religions is your opinon and not fact.

I just don't by the narrative Christianity commonly "absorbed" pagan religions, as if it was a gradual pre-historic admixture event. That's kind of like viewing it in the perspective of a genetics. The spread of Christianity is completely differnt from migration of people. The church has an incredible well documented history. Christianity today is the same as it was 60 AD. Little twiks in tradition or theology don't make differnt Christian sects differnt religions. The conversation of 100s of Pagen ethnic groups didn't change Christianity. This absorption of pagan religions never happened.

"yearnings of the human psyche". Right there you hit the nail on the head. Yeah, Pagans thought similarly, because they were human!! The idea of someone rising from the dead, is very heroic and awesome. Just because Pagans had this idea of rising from the dead, doesn't mean Christians copied them. The thing about Christianity is the founders of the Church and writers of much of the New Testament, knew Jesus. The writings aren't from generations after the events or some random ethnic groups view on theology. Either they were crazy and made up everything as a sick joke which got them persecuted or they were telling the truth.

Angela said:

As for the differences in Eucharistic theology, they are profound, despite the fact that in neither case is a human body being consumed. In one tradition, the Eucharist is a sacrament, a mystical experience where the bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in the other it's just an act of remembrance of the last supper. In one tradition it is the central act of the worship service, indeed of the Christian life, and in the other it is not even done all that frequently.

As I said, the differences are profound.

Click to expand...

Communion is not solely an act of remembrance to anyone. Though Jesus did say "Do this in remembrance of me", so remembrance is an important aspect. Anyways, no one believes the bread/wine literally becomes Jesus's flesh and blood. Like if you stare at it, you'll see Jesus's leg hairs and veins. No one believes that. Everyone believes there's a spiritual and symbolic aspect to it, and that it represents Jesus's flesh/blood. The differences really aren't that great.