Is It OK to Eat Homeless People (and Anybody Else)?

Two stories got my attention. The first one was about a man who killed and ate a homeless man.

According to an arrest warrant, on Dec. 16 [2011] [Tyree Lincoln] Smith was sleeping on the porch of an abandoned Bridgeport [Connecticut] home occupied by [Angel “Tun Tun”] Gonzalez. Gonzalez woke Smith up and told him “you don’t have to sleep here; come inside,” the report states. Smith entered the home and then attacked Gonzalez with a hatchet, police said. According to reports, Smith then removed Gonzalez’ eyeball and a portion of his brain, placed them in a plastic bag, went to a nearby cemetery and ate them.

Did Mr. Smith do anything wrong? What is wrong, given evolutionary assumptions, that the stronger man dominated the weaker man? That’s how we got here. In the distant evolutionary past, our ancestors killed and ate competing organisms to stay alive. The organisms that got eaten did not survive. That's the nature of evolution. There's nothing moral or immoral about it. Science can't make moral judgments. It can only report what takes place.

It happens every day in the wild, as the saying goes, “Nature, red in tooth and claw.” Homo sapiens are the result of long ago superior animal ancestors forcing their will on inferior animals. We got here, say the evolutionists, because of millions of years of bloody struggle.

Michael Dowd, a minister and author of the book Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, writes the following in his recently published article “Thank God for the New Atheists”:

“Let the story of evolution be told in ways that engender familial love and gratitude, that we are related to everything — not just monkeys, but jellyfish and zucchini, too.”

If we’re related to zucchini, and it’s OK to eat zucchini, then, given evolutionary assumptions, was it OK for Mr. Smith to eat Mr. Gonzalez?

Then there was an article about the high priest of evolution that carried the title “Richard Dawkins: Morals Come From Enlightened Secular Values, Not Religion.” According to Indo-Asian News Service, Dawkins said, “We don’t need to get morals from our religions ... We don’t want to find morals from the holy books. We can have our own enlightened secular values.” Tell that to Mr. Smith. Morals can’t be derived from the materialism and bloody history of evolution.

Here’s Mr. Dawkins’ view on morality. The following words are his:

“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”1

Mr. Smith was acting in accord with these very principles.

  1. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: HarperCollins/BasicBooks, 1995), 133. []



  • screeminmeeme

    Because atheists reject the notion of ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTH, they have no OBJECTIVE standard by which to make judgments about right and wrong. Therefore, his view of morality is based only upon his personal experience and preferences which are subjective and arbitrary.

    If there is no God with a plan for His creation.... with human beings having been given the greatest value, all life is pointless existence. Man has no greater value than a monkey or worm. This is the logical implication of atheism. Without GOD, the ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTH GIVER, we have no basis for morality....values suce as ''right'' and ''wrong'' are totally relative and have no ABSOLUTE MOORING. The atheist has NO RIGHTEOUS STANDARD by which he can judge anything. He has no foundation for calling anything wrong. In a godless society, morality is simply determined by vote.

    • Jonathan Gartner

      I would say that they do not reject absolute moral truth but they have twisted it to their own way. In this they are their own "gods" and they make their own standards as they go along. In essence they have made themselves "gods" I can hardly wait until they meet the real one he does not care for such foolishness

      • screeminmeeme

        Jonathan.... I have had many serious debates with atheists and they DO reject the whole idea of absolute moral truth. They don't acknowledge that there are some things that wrong for every culture, for every era, for every people. That only leaves open to them the claim to a kind of morality based solely on the flimsy foundation of subjectivity.

        Though there are countless ways to refute their position, I believe their achilles heel is the Objective Moral Truth argument. Of course they will bluff and bluster but they absolutely have no answer to the charge.

        Indeed, they WILL acknowledge God, after death, when their knees are bowed to their Creator and they confess with their tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord. But it gives me no pleasure to say that because they will be lost forever.

        Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; .........
        Psa 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Quite a contrast.

        • Jonathan Gartner

          I agree with your arguement however the "discussions" I have had with the seculare humanist crowd they have made up their own rules contrary to God of course and easyily disected (sorry about the spelling)

  • screeminmeeme

    If man is the product of an accidental combination of millions of mindless molecules in motion in an ultimately impersonal universe, then HUMAN VALUES such as honesty, brotherhood, love and generosity have no more cosmic significance than treachery, selfishness, hatred and prejudice.

    Conclusion: In an atheistic society, with material relativism being the pervading worldview, eating the guy next door cannot be judged as bad or evil because every action has parity with all others. It's kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten.
    So.............feel free to barbecue Ed, your neighbor. Bon apetite!

    • Myrtlelinder

      If that is the way he feels maybe another cannibal will soon come along and eat him. Then, maybe the people surrounding him will be safe.

      I can see why he ate the brain, his body was screaming for the brain cells that he didn't have, but needed.

      They do that in the wilds?? We are pretty wild here, but really are not exactly, living in the wilds and we do have laws here, to protect us from the "wilds level"

  • Schwan

    Just FYI, and you can delete this after you fix it, but the first paragraph says that Smith attacked Gonzalez. But the rest of the post makes it sound like Gonzalez attacked Smith.


      That looks exactly correct. It looks like Angel invited this guy inside, then this psycho homeless dude attacked the nice guy letting him stay inside. No good deed goes unpunished.

  • David

    Zombie apocalypse???? Braaaaaaaaaaain.......................

  • Jonathan Gartner

    Ok lets go for one the people that wish to make such comparisons are illogical to begin with in that they say we came from some monkeys once upon a time I had a argument with Dr.(Mrs) Leaky about this many years ago and at that age bought some laughter and then some serious thought that I was right monkeys still exist there fore that discussion goes right out the window. We are here by God no other "animal" is quite like us and in the time we have been on this planet roughly say 15,000 years gives us basically no time what so ever for the arguement of evolution just not enough time. I was about 17 at that time and was able to grasp the problems with liberal and their theory of evolution. If we allow them enough time the marxist secular/humanist of course we will end up eating each othe in Hestons words "Soylent Green is made of people"

  • Just saying

    Something is not right...The title says that the homeless man was eatten, not the other way around, so Gonzales should have been the one eating Smith, if Smith was the homeless man. Confusing. At any rate, one ate some of the other...interesting world we live in. Now, my questions is: government promotes natural selection theory and evolution does it not? Then why do we have so many programs and redictributionist policies? the weak people, aka the poor people should be left to survive on their own, if we abide by the natural selection idea. If they cannot, then the society will grow stronger, because only the strong will survive.


    Only animals eat one another.

  • Bud MacGuire

    Well his first crime was murder, "Thou shalt not kill>" I don't know about the rest of it. there have been cases, e.g. the old Oregon Caravan passage, of staving people eating human flesh after the victim had died. I'm sure that would be considered criminal under most other circumstances, though.

  • Cognitive Dissident

    Of course it was morally wrong and disgusting. Are you in your right mind to suggest otherwise?

    Even if human beings evolved to be able to determine what is and isn't morally wrong, that doesn't diminish the meaning or significance of something being morally wrong.

    • Roger

      Coggy, have you sunk so low that you want to find someone to argue on the topic of cannibalism?

      Didn't your tactics work better than that?

      Remember how noble you made it sound when you explained how to work your opponents over?

      "You'll get farther as a troll without blanketing your opponent from "Go". Try for subtlety, and remember that the otherside is not monolithic in their thinking. Do not help them unify with your firebombs. We should strive to psychologically divide and conquer!"

  • screeminmeeme

    Cognitive Dissident.....Cannabalism is ''wrong'' ? On what basis? There are cultures that exist today that believe its a good idea to murder and eat their neighbor. That is fact. My question: on what basis could you ever tell them they are wrong?

    Either a person acknowledges a God-given set of objective moral absolutes, one of which is that it is always wrong to murder people, in any culture, at any time, or he does not. And If he rejects God's laws, then his moral worldview must by default be based on personal opinion, emotion, and majority vote. But it's all relative...and every ideology, according to relativism, has parity...all are equally valid. The atheist , therefore, has no foundation to criticize anyone's morals..and everytime he does, he violates his own worldview.

    I am personally appalled and repulsed by the act of cannabalism reported on in the article. Why? Because I am a Christian who firmly believes it is wrong because GOD says it's wrong.

    • Shootin' Bum

      You mentioned that you were a Christian and found eating of human flesh disgusting? You didn't specify exactly which TYPE of Christian that you are. Catholics believe in the transmutation of the elements of Communion. That is, the bread and wine are actually transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Therefore, ritual cannibalism is at the heart of one of the larger Christian denominations.

      • screeminmeeme

        I'm not a Catholic but a Christian of many decades and dedicated Bible student. I believe that the proper interpretation of Christ's words is that He was speaking symbolically, in line with Jewish and rabbinical tradition usage of the metaphor of eating and drinking. It is frequently used throughout Scripture.

        The rabbis even spoke of 'eating the Messiah' when he appeared (and without any cannibalistic overtones or objections), and by that meant a sharing and enjoying of His benefits--exactly what Jesus is referring to in John 6 and Luke 26.

        So, I disagree that ritual cannibalism is a biblical concept.

    • meat-eater

      I'm not sure I understand your posting. You open with questioning that cannibalism is "wrong" and then conclude with the statement that GOD says that it's wrong.

      Exactly where in the Bible does God say that eating human flesh is wrong or even merely sinful? That the 10 commandments say "Thou shall not kill" (murder) is true. Also, that one of the things that God hates is the "shedding of innocent blood" is also true.

      HOWEVER . . .
      The book of Deuteronomy only lays out the clean and unclean animals and dietary rules (among many others), but those restrictions are in regard to ritual cleanliness. That ritual cleanliness only affects a person's right to worship in the temple.

      The revulsion against the eating of human flesh is CULTURAL, not Biblical. Ultimately, human flesh is just meat, like that of any animal. Murder is wrong, but in a true survival situation I see nothing wrong with people saving lives by recycling the body of an already deceased person.

      • screeminmeeme

        While there is no scripture that explicitly prohibits cannabalism, there are some biblical principles and practices that indicate cannibalism is a terribly evil thing. In Genesis 1:26-27, from the beginning, God made it very clear that mankind was distinct from the animal kingdom, having been made in His image, and as such, was to be valued in a fashion above that of animals. While God gave man permission to eat a wide variety of meats, He never gave man permission to eat other people.

      • screeminmeeme

        God judged those who did commit cannibalism: Ex 5:10.
        In Lev 26:29 and Dt 28, Moses clearly lays before Israel the blessings that would come if they obeyed Him, and the curses that would come as a result of turning to idols. Cannibalism was one of those curses for rejecting God and descending into paganism and its depravity.

        God is revulsed by cannibalism. If cannibalism of an already dead body was truly the only way to stay alive, one would have to search his own conscience about the matter and decide. However, in Scripture, the care and burial of the human body is driven by love and respect for that person as one made in the image of God, so one would have to weigh that against his own life.

  • nanny


  • Tom

    Obama voters eating each other ? As grissley as that may seem, it could save the Country !

  • 1599

    Where I'm from "eating people" doesn't mean actually consuming them.

  • Lawrence

    thank God that man and others are showing their morality or the lack thereof and that is why there is a Hell a real place .Someone who knows, why do you think I am called the witness!

  • Okole

    I prefer to eat pussy

  • Frank Norton

    A god would not have made man to distroy the ecology, to become over 7 billion persons to eat everything alive. Somewhere in past times an off Earth being came and took Earth women for wives and here we are!