Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy?

[arewethereyet]

As far as I know, JWs believe that there is no afterlife, but that there will be a resurrection of the dead at the Judgement Day. Which, I think, can be refuted by the fact that canibalism exists.

Isn’t resurrection a form of afterlife? I mean, you’re alive, then dead, then alive again. Being alive after you’ve died is life after death, which is what ‘afterlife’ means.

What’s cannibalism got to do with resurrection?

Boru

Heme iron.

[FlatAssembler]

As far as I know, JWs believe that there is no afterlife, but that there will be a resurrection of the dead at the Judgement Day. Which, I think, can be refuted by the fact that canibalism exists.

Isn’t resurrection a form of afterlife? I mean, you’re alive, then dead, then alive again. Being alive after you’ve died is life after death, which is what ‘afterlife’ means.

What’s cannibalism got to do with resurrection?

Boru

Well, it depends on how we define afterlife. I think that, when you say "afterlife", most people imagine some astral bodies, or at least some form of incorporeal existence.

If one person eats another person, how could both of them be resurrected?

[arewethereyet]

Your medications need to be adjusted.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Isn’t resurrection a form of afterlife? I mean, you’re alive, then dead, then alive again. Being alive after you’ve died is life after death, which is what ‘afterlife’ means.

What’s cannibalism got to do with resurrection?

Boru

Well, it depends on how we define afterlife. I think that, when you say "afterlife", most people imagine some astral bodies, or at least some form of incorporeal existence.

If one person eats another person, how could both of them be resurrected?

The 144 000 who go to Heaven as Jesus’ personal aides will be resurrected as ‘spirit beings, so that should satisfy your personal definition. Even those of the Great Flock who don’t make it to Heaven will live forever in an Earthly paradise, which would seem to require at least some measure of incorporeality.

I think your point about cannibalism would only apply if one Jehovah’s Witness devoured another, a situation which is fairly unlikely.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I assume you’re wondering how they come back if the body has been destroyed. Easy…..the same thing can raise the dead….gives them new ones.

[Anomalocaris]

Isn’t resurrection a form of afterlife? I mean, you’re alive, then dead, then alive again. Being alive after you’ve died is life after death, which is what ‘afterlife’ means.

What’s cannibalism got to do with resurrection?

Boru

Well, it depends on how we define afterlife. I think that, when you say "afterlife", most people imagine some astral bodies, or at least some form of incorporeal existence.

If one person eats another person, how could both of them be resurrected?

One person eating another has several possible meanings in English.    But I will assume you mean consuming another person for food.   In that case I assume they resurrect as Russian matryoshka dolls?

[FlatAssembler]

Your medications need to be adjusted.

I talked to my psychiatrist today, she told me to stop taking Biperiden unless my hands are really shaking. Until today, I was taking half a pill every day. She left Risperidone (the antipsychotic) at the same dose I was taking before, the lowest possible dose.

[FlatAssembler]

I asked that question about cannibalism on Christianity StackExchange.

[arewethereyet]

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?

[FlatAssembler]

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.