Posts: 16625
Threads: 128
Joined: July 10, 2013
Reputation:
65
RE: Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy?
June 20, 2023 at 5:44 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2023 at 6:04 pm by arewethereyet.)
The JW's won't accept a blood transfusion to save a life. Somehow that makes me think they aren't going to eat a person for dinner.
Posts: 46440
Threads: 541
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy?
June 20, 2023 at 5:59 pm
(June 20, 2023 at 5:31 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: (June 20, 2023 at 5:17 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: So you are going from forum to forum with the same nonsense?
Do you keep doing that till you get an answer that you like?
It's just that I am far more likely to get a response from somebody who knows about Jehovah's Witnesses theology on Christianity StackExchange than here. And that cannibalism argument isn't mine at all. If I remember correctly, Keith Augustine also used it in one of his papers, and cited somebody else related to that argument. They probably have a somewhat-sensible response to it.
There is no case to be made. It’s a thoroughly stupid argument against resurrection. As Nudger said, a new body can be readily supplied. In fact, in a lot of cases, a new body would
have to be supplied.
Suppose a Witness died in righteousness 50 years and was buried. Would God resurrect them as a rotting corpse or simply shove them into a new body that didn’t have bits dropping off? Or is blown to teeny tiny bits in a terror attack? Or is incinerated in a house fire? What is to prevent a universe-creating god from smooshing up a bunch of stray atoms and reconstituting a body?
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax