Richard Dawkins claims we should eat lab-grown human meat

[Angrboda]

Does or does not catholicism state that bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of human being . Which is then consumed ?

..In the physical form of bread and wine. This in no way means we think it is ethical or healthy to eat dead people. The Church is actually against such practice unless in cases of life and death.

Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharistic offering bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. The reaffirmation of this doctrine was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. It was later challenged by various 14th century reformers—John Wycliffe in particular.

The manner in which the change occurs, the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ.":1333 The precise terminology to be used to refer to the nature of the Eucharist, and its theological implications, has a contentious history especially in the Protestant Reformation.

---

Council of Trent

In 1551, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation as Catholic dogma, stating that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." In its 13th session ending 11 October 1551, the Council defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation". This council officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ's presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term "accidents", and the word "substance" was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West, as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same "οὐσία" (Greek) or "substantia" (Latin) as the Father.

Wikipedia || Transubstantiation

[Crossless2.0]

Though transubstantiation is a pillar of Catholic belief, I've always suspected that deep down most Catholics don't really believe it -- mystery or not.

The only thing that mystifies me are the lengths they'll go to avoid acknowledging what a pile of nonsense it really is.

[Catholic_Lady]

Though transubstantiation is a pillar of Catholic belief, I've always suspected that deep down most Catholics don't really believe it -- mystery or not.

The only thing that mystifies me are the lengths they'll go to avoid acknowledging what a pile of nonsense it really is.

I believe it

[Brian37]

Though transubstantiation is a pillar of Catholic belief, I've always suspected that deep down most Catholics don't really believe it -- mystery or not.

The only thing that mystifies me are the lengths they'll go to avoid acknowledging what a pile of nonsense it really is.

I believe it

CL, still not the point. I am a former Catholic. We know you believe it, not the issue. What evidence do you have?

I got to the point where I accepted I had none, that is why I scraped it.

Wanting something to be true is not evidence.

A history of tradition is also not evidence.

Back then, humans, not just Catholics, but most humans thought that good and bad happen for divine reasons, and that holy people had a special insight to a super hero. 

I think you are a very nice lady, but I don't think you need old mythology to live your life. 

Babies are not born without a second set of DNA. Humans do not have super natural powers. Humans do not get murdered as and rise from the dead as the bible would imply.

That was then, this is now. It was understandable back then that people made bad guesses and passed those beliefs onto the next generation. We've learn a hell of a lot since.

I am being fair to you because I'd argue the same with all religions.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well I thought C2 might be implying that I didn't believe it, so that's why I said that. Wanted to clarify.

[Crossless2.0]

Well I thought C2 might be implying that I didn't believe it, so that's why I said that. Wanted to clarify.

I don't doubt you do believe it. I'm just mystified that people can read a pretty obvious metaphor and mistake it for something else.

[GrandizerII]

Well I thought C2 might be implying that I didn't believe it, so that's why I said that. Wanted to clarify.

I don't doubt you do believe it. I'm just mystified that people can read a pretty obvious metaphor and mistake it for something else.

Or that they actually believe it makes any sense whatsoever. But then again, this is the same church that brought forth both the Trinity bullshit and the Jesus "100% human and 100% God" bullshit.

[The Industrial Atheist]

I'm not sure what the point is in getting humans used to eating other humans. It shouldn't become necessary for humans to eat other humans in order to survive.(at least on a large scale) I don't really see anything morally wrong with eating other humans (but not murdering them) when you are starving. There's no consciousness there. It's just a carcass. I'm sure I would refuse or gag though.

[emjay]

Fair point... there are some species that engage in cannibalism... Praying Mantis' and maybe some types of spiders come to mind... but for them, though I've not got the slightest clue why they do that, it seems to be part of their lifecycle... not just individually but as a group... ie their reproductive goals are met... so in the balance of the whatever counts as their 'society'/collective, especially where there are many males to one female or whatever (ie like a hive, where some are expendible in service to the queen), it just doesn't seem to be detrimental at all to their success as a species. In other words it just seems that that's a finely balanced part of their ecosystem.

They need to eat, the food is there, so they eat.  The point of showing those sorts of ritual cannibalistic acts is that it demolishes any notion that cannibalism is somehow universally a bad idea in any evolutionary sense - a thing flatly selected against.  More mundane acts of cannibalism than any spider eating it's mate come next.  It rains food on the ocean floor from all the incidental cannibalism that goes down.  We've seen people do it, and we've seen other apes do it.  Cannibalism is present at every level and organization of life..from the smallest and "simplest" organisms up to ourselves.  Maybe because we all need to eat..hehehe.

Okay, fair enough. Consider me fully corrected on that point... cannibalism happens.

But in the human case it would not be like that... not part of our nature but rather a deviation from it, and thus something that could upset that equivalent balance. If that makes sense? You're making me think more than I was planning to in this thread... I was just dipping in the middle of watching a programme

"Our nature" is not a thing set in stone.  It's only a deviation from "our nature" in that we don't do it..but cannibalism is the "nature" of a cannibal and not eating people would be a deviation form his "nature".  What balance would it, or could it, upset?  It doesn't seem to be upsetting anything anywhere else.

Yeah, I realised that didn't make much sense after I said it, but I left it. I guess I was just trying to say that in those animals it seems to be something of a reflex action... or ritual as you put it... but as you say, it can also be opportunistic and incidental.

More thought is always a plus, eh?  

Either that or the golden rule "if you have an undeveloped thought, don't share it on AF... especially if Khemikal's around"

So, about the above..and things we think make sense.  Would it be fair to notice that your idea of the "balance" we find ourselves in, conceptualized as a natural balance..is more accurately a social balance?  That you think that cannibalism is a deviation because it;s a deviation from your culture?  That your notions of natural balance are silently informed by your cultural assumptions.

I think I was just thinking in a sort of ecological niche/equilibrium sense... ie that which is upset whenever man comes along and fucks up some ecosystem by deforestation or whatever ... a state of generally no net change. I know it's probably more complex than that, but that was just the level I was thinking at. It's easier to think about when thinking of insects/hives etc... but I guess that would translate to a human culture... and thus, to possibly pre-empt your next point ... if a culture, such as one of these cannibalistic tribes, is okay with it then that would be part of their equilibrium.

My view on cannibalism from a non-biological point of view is two things really: the cannibal scene in Hostel Part II is quite possibly the most disturbing scene I've ever seen in a horror film... even though the scene only lasts a few seconds and is largely left to the imagination... both from the perspective of empathy for the victim and more metaphorically, as it illustrates and takes to grotesque extremes something that is already an uncomfortable thought about nature; that on the one side of the equation you have an animal with a whole life story, thoughts, dreams, hopes, memories etc, but on the other side of the equation is the predator that comes along and eats it without a second thought, and all it is to it, is one of many meals. That's just an uncomfortable aspect of the indifference of the cycle of nature, which, in the case of Hostel, if done deliberately and sadistically, becomes an even more unpleasant thought, and would be part of that victim's mental torture.

That's an example of cannibalism of the living... albeit a particularly sadistic example. An example of cannibalism of the dead... or potentially... and the issues it raises comes from the film The Bounty; Captain Bligh and few of his crew have been set adrift by the mutineers, and one of the crew offers himself up for the others to cannibalise after he is dead, which, on the grounds of dignity, the Captain declines. That seems to be more about the fact that death effects the living as well as the dead; the notion of respect for the dead as well the comfort to the living that comes from a proper burial etc. In all frankness, I think it's probably more about the living rather than the dead's wishes in this case; when my grandparents died they were both cremated and scattered, and soon after, their house was sold. That was very sad for both me and my sister, because it was as if they were rubbed out as if they never existed, and there was not even a grave to visit. But my grandparents were happy to be cremated because they were Christians and thought their souls would be in heaven. Anyway, back to this, here the crew member willingly offers himself up to his friends after he is dead but the offer is declined on these sorts of grounds. If hypothetically I said to you in all earnestness that you could eat me after I was dead, then legal issues aside, I doubt you'd feel comfortable with it right, RIGHT? As Blackadder put it "he offered himself so that his friends might live... and his enemies would have something to go with their potatoes."

In the case of the OP... of artificially grown meat... neither of these two examples apply, because there'd be no conscious being involved, neither for the empathy considerations or the attachment/dignity considerations. But there'd still be whoever donated the stem cells in the first place... so there's still a human connection... in which case it might again come back down to, at least something similar to, Bligh's concerns. But even if it made sense rationally, as similar in principle to organ donation... as a benefit to mankind, I still don't think I'd feel comfortable with it, but it wouldn't be the first time I didn't eat something for irrational reasons; I feel uncomfortable eating quinoa as well because despite being a superfood, and tasting lovely, its texture and appearance reminds me of caviar (ie lots of little balls) and thus makes me think of the genocide of thousands of poor little fish eggs, just for a few spoonfuls of some delicacy... which again is similar to that whole indifference of nature uncomfortableness from before.

[Angrboda]

Yeah I was about to say the same. Eating human meat can do some weird shit to your blood and be dangerous. You figure a biologist would know that. Let's keep cannibalism taboo please.

Though transubstantiation is a pillar of Catholic belief, I've always suspected that deep down most Catholics don't really believe it -- mystery or not.

The only thing that mystifies me are the lengths they'll go to avoid acknowledging what a pile of nonsense it really is.

I believe it

What disturbs me is that you seem to be okay with Catholics eating human flesh if it occurs in a church, yet you seem to want to deny the same right to others by making it taboo.

At the very least, your view is quixotic.