Is It Time for a More Nuanced View on Cannibalism?

It always starts as some sort of, this is much more complicated than you thought it was. It's not as black and white as you thought it was. And here's why. And then they try to complicate it.

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences. These audiences may include, but are not limited to, professing Christians who never read their Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man buns, those who approve of men with man buns, man bun enablers, white knights for men with man buns, homemakers who have finished Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies.

Viewer discretion is advised.

People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio. The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone, and any who reject Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven.

The issue is that humanity is in sin, and the wrath of Almighty God is hanging over our head.

They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the Father, where he sits now to make intercession for us.

Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

Welcome to Bible Bashed, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask. We're your host Harrison Kerrig and Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we're answering the age old question, is it time for a more nuanced view on cannibalism?

And Tim, I think it's funny because a lot of times we say, hey, we're answering the age old question, whatever it is, and that's meant to be sort of a tongue in cheek. People don't want you asking these questions.

We're trying to answer all of the questions that no one else wants to answer because there are Christians out there who are asking this. But funnily enough, this question in particular, is it time for a more nuanced view on cannibalism?

Seems to be something that for one reason or another, especially in the last few weeks, I feel like I've just seen article after article and person after person, particularly people who are leaning more towards the left, they're asking this question.

They're trying, it seems almost like they're trying to push the idea onto people. Have you gotten that sense as well, or am I just seeing something where there's nothing?

No, I've seen, yeah, I've seen several articles on this and multiple times I've seen people talking about this subject in particular. So it's definitely something that, in some ways I'm a little bit surprised it's taken them so long to get to.

I mean, leaving aside all the Hollywood conspiracy theories and all that, we know that it's probably something that they're doing already. But then thinking about the nature of all the taboos that our society has overturned so far, it's somewhat surprising that it's taken us so long to get to this one.

But it seems like that's where we're at for sure.

Yeah, and speaking of articles, there was one in particular that I was reading right before we started recording this episode. And I just wanted to, it's a really short article. And so I just wanted to take the time to read it for the people who might be sitting there thinking, no one's trying to push this.

No one's trying to talk about cannibalism and making cannibalism normal. Well, there's an article that I don't know if this publication is where it originated from, but this is from newscientist .com.

And it's titled, is it time for a more subtle view on the ultimate taboo colon cannibalism? And I'll read the article for you. It is the ultimate taboo in most societies, the idea of one human eating another is morally repugnant.

Even in circumstances where it could arguably be justified, such as when a plane crashed in the Andes in 1972 and starving passengers ate the dead to survive. We still have a deep aversion to cannibalism.

One of the survivors, Roberto Canessa, has since described the passengers actions as a descent towards our ultimate indignity. Ethically, cannibalism poses fewer issues than you might imagine. If a body can be bequeathed with consent to medical science, why can't it be left to feed the hungry?

Our aversion has been explained in various ways. Perhaps it is down to the fact that in Western religious traditions, bodies are seen as the seat of the soul and have a whiff of the sacred. Or maybe it is culturally ingrained with roots in early modern colonialism when racist stereotypes of the cannibal were concocted to justify subjugation.

These came to represent the quote unquote, other to Western societies and revulsion towards cannibalism became a tenant of their moral conscience. A slew of recent archeological discoveries is now further complicating how we think about human cannibalism.

Researchers have unearthed evidence suggesting that our hominin ancestors ate each other surprisingly often. What's more, it seems that they weren't always doing so for the reasons you might expect, for sustenance or to compete against and intimidate rivals, but often as a funerary ritual to honor their dead.

Like it or not then, cannibalism is an important part of our story. This isn't to say that we should change our attitude towards it, but understanding its deep roots might shift our perspective on the few cultures that still practice cannibalism today, albeit only occasionally, such as the Aghori, a Hindu ascetic sect in India that does it in pursuit of transcendence.

Above all, these discoveries invite us to reconsider our revulsion to cannibalism in the context of our evolutionary past. So that's the article, Tim. And so, you know, as you're listening to that article, what were some of your takeaways?

What were some thoughts you had about how we should view cannibalism?

Yeah, I mean, yeah, I guess we should, man.

We need to change the way we look at it, man. We've been too bigoted all along. We look down our noses at the cannibals.

Yeah, I mean, we're just being racist, you know?

Yeah, it's gotta be, you know. Why do so many people look down on people who eat other human beings? It must be their racism.

That's what it is.

Come on.

Yeah, so, I mean, under an evolutionary worldview, there isn't anything that's uniquely sacred about human beings. You know, along those lines, I mean, they're thinking consistently within their worldview, this is a product of a biblical worldview.

And when you throw off a biblical worldview, then you're just, there really isn't any rational grounding for why human beings are uniquely special in any way. I mean, this is basically the argument that PETA is making at that point, too, that we're animals, you know, it's like, these are our brothers.

You know, these are our evolutionary heads. So, you know, just as it would be barbaric to eat a human, it's barbaric to eat an animal. So there's nothing distinct.

You know, mankind is,.

If mankind isn't created in the image of God, there's nothing that distinguishes him from the rest of creation. Then we're just part of, we're part of that creation, too, you know? So, in one sense, there is a, you really do have to think about, like, the nature of what truth claims certain worldviews have access to.

And, you know, under the terms of an evolutionary worldview, I mean, animals eat each other, so, you know, what's the big deal, right? It's just some kind of, you know, weird taboo that naked apes have adopted that is just, you know, basically irrational at that point.

So there's nothing Yeah, subjective or something like that, right? There's no higher standard that we're pulling that idea from.

Yeah, sure. So, I mean, there's nothing really much to it, right? So, you know, and this basically, you can think about all morality as it works, functioning in a similar sort of way. I mean, I read a fantasy series of books one time.

I can't remember which one it was, but then there was one particular culture in these fantasy books that the ladies weren't allowed to, like, uncover their left hand or something. And, you know, that was called their safe hand.

They're not allowed to uncover their left hand. But basically, like, that was kind of a, what that was designed to do is poking at the Christian view of modesty in that, like, certain body parts are off limits for exposure and, like, trying to make fun of it, like, basically showing how that's irrational, right?

So, like, that's irrational. It's just as irrational as that. And then if you look at that kind of thing from the outside and you say, yeah, like, there's nothing sacred about a left hand over a right hand, this is just some kind of irrational prejudice that you've adopted somewhere along the lines.

But I mean, that's another kind of thing that's happening with this kind of thinking. But, yeah, I mean, yeah, if we're just,.

You know, if we're just creatures.

That have evolved from a common ancestor with apes or something along those lines and, you know, animals routinely eat each other and food is food, right? So meat is meat. You know, you're already used to eating other animals.

We're just, you know, carnivores like the rest of them, omnivores or whatever. What's the big deal? So, yeah, I mean, this is just one of those things that the evolutionary worldview doesn't have a real answer to this.

So it's not really remarkable that they're confused.

And it's pretty interesting to me, you know, you're talking about this sort of subjective sort of worldview that atheists have where, you know, nothing is sacred because we're all just part of an evolutionary process with no sort of transcendental meaning to it.

And so when you adopt that atheistic mindset, essentially, I mean, if you want to be consistent, human beings are of the same value as fish or, you know, germs or trees or whatever it is, you know, life in general.

Yeah, then cultures are

All cultures are the same, right?

Yeah, they're the same kind of value. So then you have these like cannibalistic societies, like notice how the article put it, they're an important part of our story. It's like, well, no, I don't think that they're, they're not important.

They're only important in the sense that they happen in that way.

They're important in the sense of they're showing us what not to do.

Right, right.

You know, they're not significant in any, they're not significant the same way, like the, you know, much more morally upstanding societies throughout history are.

Yeah, but if you don't have like an objective definition of morality, then like you don't really have like concepts of good, beautiful, and true, right? Like you don't have concepts like that. There's nothing that's like truly beautiful.

There's nothing that's praiseworthy. There's nothing that's excellent. It's just, if it is, it's significant, you know? And then who's to say like, what's more significant than anything else? And so, I mean, that's basically the argument that's being made.

Like what's the difference, right? So it happened, so it must be significant. And then if you don't say it's significant, then you're somehow prejudiced, or biased, or racist, or, you know, white supremacist, or, you know, like that.

And that's what I was gonna point out is, you know, it's funny that they're writing an article where they're saying, you know, hey, it's, you know, these societies are important too, these cannibalistic societies that, by the way, are still here today in the year of our Lord, 2024, 2 ,000 years after Jesus came and died on the cross and ascended into heaven, there are still cultures that are eating each other, right?

And they're eating their enemies and whatnot. They're partaking in cannibalistic rituals. The article is saying these people are important too, in a good way, they're important in a good way. And if you reject them, if you reject the people who are eating other human beings, then you are the one who's in the wrong, right?

So, they're presenting it as cannibalism is not bad and racism is bad, which is really funny to me.

Yeah, I mean, they don't have any, there's no way to prioritize any of this. This is just, you know, there's no king in Israel and everyone does what's right in their own eyes at that point. So, you know, apart from like some kind of objective grounding of morality, like they just don't have that.

So, then all they're doing is they're borrowing things from our worldview, but they don't have any basis for it at that point. And it just kind of, it all falls apart. So, I mean, they're right. Yeah, there's no objective grounding for morality under their worldview.

It just reduces to, you know, what is, is, you know, ought to be, it's morally praiseworthy at that point. So, we don't have any way of critiquing it at all, for sure.

So, let's just cover our basis here, Tim. In terms of cannibalism, why is cannibalism wrong, biblically?

I mean, they pointed out, I mean, they pointed out some of the major theological reasons that, you know, Christian thinkers have thought about for years, for millennia at this point, right? For thousands of years.

So, I mean, the idea that human beings don't, should not eat their fellow image bearers is grounded in the reality that, yeah, there's a connection between the body and the soul. The body is the seed of the soul at that point.

We're made in the image of God. We're distinct from the animals. So, when you think about God's instructions to mankind, you know, at the end of creation or whatever, you see in Genesis 129, God said to them, behold, I've given you every plant-yielding seed that's on the face of the earth, and every tree with seed in it, in its fruit, you shall have them for food.

So, you have instructions about what we're to eat in the garden, right? So, you're given all the plants for food, except for the, you know, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Mankind was prohibited from eating that.

But then after Noah, then, you know, what you see in Genesis 9, 3, is every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. As I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood.

And for your life blood, I will require a reckoning. From every beast, I will require it, and from man. For his fellow man, I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed for God made man in his own image.

So, man's given, like, he's given animals at this point for food. So, he's given plants for food before, now he's given animals for food. And anyone who kills, anyone who kills a man, even an animal, God says that he will require a reckoning for their life at that point.

So, man is distinct from the animals. Man's given dominion over the animals. Animals are given to man for food, plants are given to man for food. So, God hasn't given fellow image bearers to men for food.

Do you understand? So, part of it is just in the nature of God's defined food for us. He's told us what we are to eat. He's given us certain things for food. You know, man is not listed as food in that way, right?

So, part of it's that. I mean, there's just theological arguments, meaning that, like, it really, in the Christian tradition, that's where you have some kind of logical grounding for why we take care of dead bodies, even, right?

So, you know, you can see throughout both Testaments that there is this great concern to care for the body and to make sure that the body is, you know, buried, like, with respect. The body is treated with respect.

It's not treated as food. It's treated with respect. And the reason why is because God says, like, there's theological reasons God's gonna raise that same body from the dead, right? So, there's a correlation.

It's not just some different body. God's gonna raise that body from the dead. And so, Christians have always treated that body as something that's sacred, that's connected to that individual.

So, yeah.

Now, I mean, you know, the arguments that they're appealing to in the article is just to say, well, yeah, hey, if you can sell a body for science or something like that, and, you know, they can tie grandma up to a chair, and the military can blow her up or whatever, or they can experiment on her or do whatever else, then what's the big deal?

You know, why not feed someone with it? But, you know, that just, that basically just begs the question, though. It's like, well, these kind of things don't come from a Biblical worldview. In a Biblical worldview, you treat a body with respect, and, you know, it's by no means a foregone conclusion that any of the things that we're doing with dead bodies at this point are even remotely moral.

I mean, we kill millions of babies and sell their body parts for quote-unquote science. And just because that's what's happening, that doesn't mean that Christians have ever thought that these things are good.

You know, it's not good to take a human being, cut them up into little pieces, put them in plastic bags, and sell them to be used. Like, that's a profound desecration of something that's sacred in that way.

So, yeah, this is only the product of a Biblical worldview, in other words.

Right, yeah, so in a Biblical worldview, we actually have a standard for why you can't just eat anyone, right? So, okay, so they open up the article talking about, you know, a group of people who are basically put into a, you know, a survival situation where it's essentially, you know, eat the person or die.

Eat the person or starve. Because you're in the wilderness, there's no way to get out soon. And this is basically your only option. So, what, you know, as Christians, what do we do, you know, it's easy to say, right now, hey, don't eat anybody.

I mean, pretty much everyone would be like, well, yeah. Anyone that you talk to in your everyday life, they're going to say, well, yeah. I mean, why do you even feel the need to say that? That's kind of weird that you felt the need to say, hey, don't eat anybody.

But then what do you do as a Christian in that kind of survival situation where it's eat the person or starve to death and die? What, I mean, do the rules change at that point or is it like a no, hey, it's better to die than, you know, to eat a fellow image bearer?

Yeah, I mean, frequently throughout the prophets, you're going to see signs of God's judgment are going to be that women, you know, two women are going to fight over one child in order to eat their child.

And particularly in the exile, you know, when the Israelites are being sieged and exiled, like the siege is going to be so severe that, you know, a lady is going to eat her afterbirth. And, you know, people are going to be fighting over their children.

You know, Limitations 2 .20 says, "'Look, O Lord, and see with whom you have dealt thus. "'Should women eat the fruit of their womb, "'the children of their tender care? "'Should priests, prophet, be killed "'in the sanctuary of the Lord?'.

So like the implied answer there is no, right? The implied answer is they shouldn't, right? So, but yeah, I mean, I don't really have an impulse to say that something that is a sign of judgment against a nation is something that you should perform, if that makes sense.

So over and over and over again,.

I mean, over and over and over again, God describes a sign of judgment against the Israelites is going to be that they're going to be so dehumanized to the point where they're going to be fighting over eating each other, like as a sign of judgment.

So I would just say that, yeah, yeah, there's no, so it'd be better to die in that way. I mean, now people can look at me and say, hey, yeah, that's easy for you to say, you're not in that kind of situation and everything else.

But it's like, you have to answer that question before you get there. And you have to have theological reasons for what you're saying. And I mean, I don't really think it's that significant of a statement to make, you know, like meaning like you shouldn't eat people.

You know, like I think you can just read the Bible, read both Testaments. This isn't really meant to be like a complicated thing here. And, you know, I'm sure that there's a great many things that, I mean, situations you can find yourself in that are just going to be test for whether or not you have integrity.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Like, so, I mean, you could, I mean, you could come up with like crazy, like sadistic scenarios where someone is holding a gun to your head and say, hey, yeah, you believe in Jesus or whatever, and you're captured.

And it's like, if you don't rape this person, I'm going to shoot you or whatever. And I don't really think it's that much for a Christian just to say, yeah, well, go ahead and shoot me.

Right?

Right.

Obviously, like if you're in that situation, you'll see what you're made of. You'll see what you're made of, right? Are you willing to just do whatever it takes to, you know, get your head, just to live a few more days or something like that?

So, I mean, but like the issue is like, do you believe that God's real? Do you believe that he exists, that he exists? Like the Lord's prayer is to give us this day our daily bread, forgive us our trespasses, you know, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

Like, the issue is that, do you believe that God exists? Do you believe that he can feed you if he wants to? Like, do you really think that whatever sustenance you're going to find from eating people, he couldn't give you in another way if he wanted to?

Like, do you really think that that's some kind of permanent means of survival or something like that? Like, you know, you're talking about like saving yourself a few days of food or something. Like, you see what I'm saying?

Like, I mean, what do you think is going to happen? Like you, like he can make your situation permanent. You know, he could fix your situation instantaneously. This is the God who created the heavens, the earth.

So, you know, it's, this is just a test of a person's integrity at that point. It's just, do you believe it's wrong? If it's wrong, then don't do it. And trust the Lord. And like, to live is Christ, to die is gain.

It'd be better to leave than to stay, right? So like, do you believe these basic things about the Christian life that you have a hope that isn't perishable, undefiled, reserved in heaven for you? Do you believe it's better, you know, like that it would be better to depart and be with the Lord than to stay here?

So, you know, what do you believe at this point? And like that, so these are just, these are just tests about what your basic nature of your faith is. So yeah, I mean, you can decide in your own heart by God's grace that you'll never eat someone.

And I don't really think you're making that some big decision or something like that. You're just basically saying the human body is valuable and God is to be honored. And like my ethics don't reduce to pure subjective, pure subjectivism when I put the test, you know?

So it's just that kind of thing is, do you believe that there is like absolute moral standards that God binds you to? Yes or no, you know? So, and then are you willing to die for him? Yes or no? It's really about that complicated.

So, I mean, I'm not trying to say it's like, it's not like hard to starve to death or something like that. I'm just trying to say that there should be certain things that are unthinkable to the Christian.

And if they, if you really think

No matter what.

Yeah, I mean, if they're unthinkable, they're unthinkable. So, I mean, it should be unthinkable to you to, like, yeah, I'm never gonna reject the Lord. I'm never gonna deny the Lord. So, and we'll see if you're put in that situation, but you should, and I don't think, you know, let the person who thinks he stands take heed unless they fall and all that and everything else.

But I mean, you don't just like determine your ethics based on what you think is reasonable when you're under severe temptation or something. You know, just, that isn't really the way it works.

Right, so you were saying throughout all that, this is, you know, this is like a black and white thing. This is clear, right?

Sure.

The scriptures are clear what to do in this situation or, you know, what to do with this topic. And it doesn't really change depending on the specific situation or circumstance you might find yourself in.

But then the article, the article that we read, it's presenting it as a, hey, this is much more complicated than you think it is, which I've, you know, that's something that I've noticed a lot with plenty of different subjects that now our society views as normal.

Over the years, it always starts as some sort of, this is much more complicated than you thought it was. It's not as black and white as you thought it was. And here's why. And then they try to complicate it.

I mean, that's not, you know, that's something that the SBC is still in the middle of doing right now with their whole, you know, we don't know what a pastor is. We need to form a committee to decide what a pastor is, what an elder of a church is.

I mean, it's not, in my mind, and I've had individuals come up to me and tell me the same thing. They tell me, this isn't just like the SBC leadership problem. This is like, this is just people, Christians in general who are a part of the SBC, they will straight up tell me, no, it is complicated what a pastor is.

It's not simple. And, you know, you have the same thing with progressives where they're asking the question, you know, what is a woman? Well, I can't say what a woman is. That's a complicated question.

Whereas we're looking at it and saying, no, that's really not a complicated question at all. It's actually a really simple question. In fact, it's so simple that people have been able to answer that question, you know, for as long as we've existed.

You know, goat farmers in third world countries know the answer to that question. And yet you, with all your PhDs, you seem to not be able to answer it. I say all that to say, why now do you think, why are people trying to use that same tactic with the topic of cannibalism?

Yeah, I mean, cannibalism is one of those things that, you know, the Christian worldview of the West has basically wiped out, you know? So this is a sign of progress, because Christianity has so influenced the world, you know, cannibalism functionally.

Like it's an outlier at this point, if that makes sense. And so you can thank the West for that. You can thank a Christian worldview for that. And yeah, I mean, it is very simple, but I mean, but I would say that, yeah, it's, they're not giving any complicated arguments.

They're basically just saying, hey, this is a taboo. We don't know why it's a taboo anymore. Like, and so, like, we don't know why it's a taboo because we believe in evolution, not Christianity. And this whole thing was only based on Christianity.

You know, you're welcome, right? So I mean, that's basically what it is. It's like you have the atheist who wakes up one day and realizes, hey, yeah, we have no basis for this taboo anymore because we don't believe in God, you know?

So, and it's like, yeah, you're right, you don't. And you don't have any basis for any other, you know, any of the rest of your morality either. So, I mean, it's not like, it's not complicated. Like, the issue is it's not complicated.

They're trying to present it as if it's like, it's way more complicated than you think, but it's like, no, it actually isn't. It's like, you don't have any basis for, you don't have any basis for morality in your worldview.

Yes, we agree. Like, let's all agree this only came from the Christian worldview. We're responsible for eradicating cannibalism. You're welcome. So, yeah, that was our fault, right? So, but then now that you deny Christianity, now that you just think we're matter, who's evolved over time, matter, emotion, all that, matter plus time and chance, everything else, like, yeah, there's no basis for this anymore.

So, yeah, now it may seem complicated to you because you have no basis for anything, right? So, that's just kind of what it reduces to at that point. And, but I mean, I would think that like, the problem is that when Christians are playing this game, what's happening with Christians is, like, at the moment that the pagans are questioning this, then Christians, they realize they don't have any answers for this kind of thing either, right?

And so, then part of what's happening with Christians is that we just, we're so historically ignorant, like, embarrassingly ignorant of history, you know? And not just like Christian history, any history at all, that all we could think about is the moment, right?

So, you have a generations of, you have a couple of generations of individuals who they don't even know our country's history. They don't know the world's history. They don't know biblical history. They don't know church history.

They don't know any history at all. And so, then, like, they spend all day long being entertained by retards, like on TV and playing video games and everything else. And they, like, they're at this,.

They don't know anything about anything.

And so, then someone asked them a question like this, and it seems like a profound question, like, hey, maybe we ought to rethink this. And then they think about, like, their very limited knowledge of anything the Bible has to say about anything, and like, trying to think, is there any command in there that says I can't eat someone, you know?

I can't think of any verse in there that says I can't eat someone. So, I guess it's just, you know, who knows, man? Maybe we should rethink this, you know? Maybe, you know, maybe if, and then it kind of starts with the most extreme scenarios, the one you bring up, you know?

It's like, what if you're stranded on a deserted island or something like that? And, you know, God, obviously, above all else, wants you to be alive, doesn't He? You know? So, His chief priority is to keep you around for, you know, forever.

So, forever.

Because He couldn't bear to, you know, be without you, right? So, then, you know, at that, I mean, and that's about the kind of, like, the level of thinking that people are doing at that point. And so, then, it's like, yeah, you know, what's, who knows, man?

This seems a little deep, you know? I don't know, man. I don't know what I would do if I were in that situation. And so, maybe we haven't thought. But, like, the issue is that, you know, the church for 2 ,000 years has thought about these things.

And cannibalism has been eradicated thanks to Christian worldview. And so, then, you have Christians who come along and basically just like, well, yeah, well, I can't, I don't know where this comes from.

Why not just, you know, you don't wanna be legalistic? Because that would be, like, the worst thing in the world would be to be legalistic or whatever. So, then, let's just give over this ground that we've taken for the past several thousand years and go back to, you know, the, you know, spearing each other to death and eating each other at the end of it in order to celebrate our victory over our enemies.

And all that.

So, there you go.

So, how, as people start asking these increasingly ridiculous questions, how do Christians respond to this? I mean, is this, you know, are these the kinds of topics that you just refuse to even take seriously?

Are they the kind of topics that you say, hey, we've gotta study this intently so that we are prepared and can give people a biblical response? How do we respond to these kinds of, because from my perspective, there's like a, there's a part of me that wants to say, hey, this is so foolish that it doesn't even deserve a response.

That's how foolish it is. I can't, it blows my mind that this article was even thought of, let alone written and published, having gone through, you know, presumably multiple people's hands before it ever went online.

And so, there's a part of me that just wants to say, like, no, I'm not even gonna, I'm not even, this is so stupid. Get that out of my face. Quit wasting my time. But then there is a part of, another part of me that recognizes, well, our society is just so lost.

It is so dark that, of course, they're asking these kinds of questions, thinking they're saying something utterly profound. But we actually have the truth. We have the scriptures from God. We know what is right and what is wrong because God has revealed it to us.

We've got to go tell these people. So, how do you strike a balance between those two? I mean, is it the type of thing where you never treat a topic as, you know, too heinous or too just more morally bankrupt to even treat seriously?

What do you do with, how do you approach that?

Yeah, I mean, I think when you're living in a society that's largely influenced by a Christian worldview, you have the luxury to basically laugh off questions along those lines. But then I don't know that that's the society that we're living in anymore.

Meaning, like the issue is, you know, I did a poll like this and a significant number of people, a significant percentage of people, I mean, I asked something along the lines of, is it okay to eat people if you're really hungry and they're already dead or something?

And I mean, a significant percentage of the people participating in that poll basically said, yes, it's okay. You know, so I don't, I think you're not, I mean, biblical ignorance is at an all-time high.

At this point.

So, you know, you have a lot of Christians who would respond like the issue is like step one is everyone knows what they believe and why, right? But so, I mean, you just read that article from the pagan and they had to do research to figure out why this was a taboo because they had a deep thought one day.