It is Biblically ok for a Christian to raise dogs for food

I heartily thank the Con for having the courage to take a stand against mightbenihilism's reign of terror. If this were the Walking Dead, dempseyktapley would clearly be Rick Grimes. A lot of you other Bible believers ought to take note. I will be addressing your points in numerical form, for the sake of our vast and impressionable audience: 1. Would mightbenihilism eat his beloved Grandmother? To this I answer, no. I would not. However, the Con does bring up an excellent point: is cannibalism technically approved of by the New Testament? The kosher laws clearly prohibit the eating of people because they neither chew the cud nor do they have cloven hooves. (See Leviticus 11) Ergo, humans are forbidden. However, Jesus also declared all things kosher, (Mark 7:19), so we would have to conclude that this may include human beings. Nonetheless, it is true that upon my grandmother's sad demise, I would not forego a funeral to make a "Gandmammy sandwich dinner". It is a matter of conscience, true, and though I value my grandmother over most dogs, I would also not eat a dog for a similar reasons. I don't think the Con has actually made a clear point here, for I stated in my opening that "Con must assumes eating dog is socially acceptable". Outside of Canada, I am aware of no land where it is socially acceptable to eat grandmothers, yet there are many countries where eating dog is accepted. Also, unless you believe Richard Dawkins, it is clear that we are not descended from dogs, whereas we are descended from our grandmothers. 2. The Con writes, "Basically the only reason anyone would ask 'is it wrong to raise dogs to eat?' is because they know it would make people uncomfortable and is considered taboo". I stated in my opening argument that "Con must assumes eating dog is socially acceptable". Despite the embarrassing grammar I used, the Con is addressing a context where dog eating might cause a fellow believer to stumble in the faith. However, if it is socially acceptable to eat dog, then there is no stigma attached that would cause someone else concern. Just like we have no problem eating cows, pigs, chickens, chicken nuggets, etc. in such a society, eating a dog would be equivalent to eating a steak. So, yes, there is a Biblical basis for not eating something if it would be controversial. But if there is no controversy, it seems clear that eating a dog has full Biblical support --- and not only eating a dog, but actually farming them for food. If the Con admits that the only reason to not take English bulldogs, put them in tiny, restrictive cages, force feed them butter, then, on their 3rd birthday, take them out, butcher them and serve them on English muffins, is because such an act would be taboo, I think the Con is simply agreeing with my initial statement. To truly defeat me, the Con would need to point something out about dogs that makes eating them a legitimate source of remorse, through Biblical reasoning. The best way I can see to do this is as follows: All kosher animals are stupid. Dogs are stupid compared to people, but are Steven Hawkings compared to kosher animals (both emotionally and intellectually). ERGO, while it may not be a sin for a missionary, say, to eat dog meat so as not to offend the locals, it is clear that there is something inherently Biblical about eating only animals which are dumber than a box of nails, like cows, chickens, fish, etc. Therefore, to raise them would not be prudent, for if "the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalms 19:1), dogs cannot be far behind. And their loyalty, devotion, joy in seeing us come home from a hard day pan-handling in front of the mall, etc. points out that God prefers them to not be eaten. If that is so, raising them for food --- while, perhaps, not a sin in letter --- is nonetheless a sin in spirit. And "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians 3:6) However, this raises some serious concerns for Christians who eat pigs, for as George Clooney can attest, pigs are intelligent, loyal and caring animals. I quote a popular online article: Actor George Clooney was "so close" to his pet pig that he didn't want to have children, says his ex-girlfriend Elizabeth Daily. The actor-filmmaker recently got engaged to Amal Alamuddin. Elizabeth believes his change of heart with regards to love and marriage has come after he finally got over the death of his pig named Max, reports femalefirst.co.uk. "He didn't need children, Max was his baby. He loved that pig like nothing else. It was the size of a table, absolutely huge," The Sun newspaper quoted Elizabeth as saying. She further said that he never needed or wanted to have children when he had Max. "I would just be hanging out round George's with giant pig chilling out beside us. It had its own special pen and at night it would sleep on the floor right besides George's bed. It got in that bed at times. (Also read: Is Sandra Bullock Upset by George Clooney's Engagement? ) "They were so close it was like father and son. When Max died in 2006 he was really torn up. Maybe now there's no Max he'll start to feel the pangs of parenthood. That would be great for him," she said. ( http://movies.ndtv.com... ) Even though the Con is clearly some awesome combination of Rick Grimes, Iron Man and Tom Hanks, I still maintain that their argument did not truly address my initial contention, as stated. They must now show and prove against this. I wish them well. It will be difficult.