Please for the love of Yaweh you understand the metaphor of that particular story
1 Like
I guess Iād ask for proof of consciousness after organic brain death first, if I were a skepticā¦ But thatās just me. Weāre not going to be able to offer empirical proof of these these things. Itās faith.
Wrote it just for you 
Thatās unprovable either way. Which is why most people donāt touch it. One of the key aspects of religion is to avoid taking a stance that can be factually disproven. Hence why most people take aim at the wafers.
But the brain provides the function of consciousness. Form and function. If itās dead, and rots, then no consciousness.
I can prove the organ responsible for will, thought, and self-awareness has ceased to function, or even exist anymore.
The brain provides the function of conciousness within our universe. As heaven theoretically operates outside of it, the unprovable either way assertion is that our conciousness is now in heaven outside the laws of the universe.
Why are you trying to disprove the afterlife again? This feels backwards AF
If heaven can intercede into this universe and salvage our consciousness, separating it from the organ that produces it, surely it could intercede on wine and waifers.
Why wouldnāt I try to disprove the afterlife empirically?
Look, if I were an atheist I would be the 'you die and fade into total unknowing oblivion," kind. I mean, the brain is dead. Everyone who ever knew you will also die. Youāll be a forgotten nothing. And one day the Earth will die. Further, if all of humanity somehow survives that by escaping to the stars, they will finally perish to the last individual with the death of the universe itself.
Youād be a very reasonable atheist.
The difference being the waiter can be tested logically and empirically, while heaven cannot
Because it cannot be done. Youāre not a very well read atheist 
Why does the blood circulate? The heart. Heart dies it can no longer function.
Why are you able to perceive and think upon these posts? An organ in your skull. Dies, it can no longer function and produce your intellect and awareness.
Emperically, when an organ dies, its function ceases
Itās all faith. āMagicā Supernatural. Whatever. I mean, the man who started the practice claimed to be with God and God. Folks, if you donāt believe, you donāt believe. Weāre some kooky folks. Didnāt mean to interrupt, I just find it funny that the wafer and wine becoming the body and bloodāyet still appearing as wafer and wine to our sensesāwas a prominent sticking point. , We believe God died on a cross and rose again. In sin/evil. And, in the before mentioned preservation of the consciousness long after the organ that produces said consciousnesses has returned to dust.
And the deaf, dumb, blind, and unknowing universe doesnāt care if I live this way. It doesnāt care if we all live with faith, of if we all strictly adhere to what we can empirically measure. There is no right or wrong way for humanity to exist. Our flash in the pan existence will finally die with the universe, if not incomprehensibly long before. And it could care less. . So, Iām going to go out with some faith. And if there is no God and heaven? Not like Iāll be able to know I was wrong, or have to tolerate a āsee, we told you soā from non-believers. Weāll all just cease to be.
Thatās fine, I only argue when people say that they have proof that reality is different than it is. You can believe in cannibalism and human sacrifice based on faith, good for you. I will discount almost everything else you say based on the fact that you arrive at your belief system through such flimsy structure, but you can keep on keepin on. I believe in evidence, and there is no evidence that a wafer has changed in any way, so I believe it has not changed (which aligns with reality as we know it).
Oh trust me, the wafer not the only ridiculous belief that Catholicās have, itās just the lowest hanging fruit and I find it funny when people try to defend the indefensible. Thatās where you get fringe websites and a story from a bishop as proof.
Ok, Iāll keep that in mind.
Many (if not most) Christians do not subscribe to transubstantiation, so this line of reasoning doesnāt really cut to the heart of the matter.
The very nature of heaven requires a plane that operates outside the laws of nature. You cannot emperically disprove heaven. For the same reason you cannot emperically disprove god.
This isnāt me doing your argument for you, itās just a very basic faith argument starting point. You cannot disprove something using the laws of our universe if the claim is said thing operates outside of it.
Iām not talking heaven or God. Iām talking about the continuation of your consciousness, which resides in this universe, after the organ which produces and maintains its existence is long dead and gone.
Which, again, cannot be disproven.
Unless you think the afterlife is subject to the laws of the universe. But if thatās the case, this gets a hell of a lot more fun real quick.
The death of the brain isnāt empirical evidence that its function has ceased?
We can lobotomize, poke, prod, drug, and shock the brain, changing the personality, level of consciousness and awareness. So we know itās function.
The death of the brain isnāt empirical evidence to refute the continuation of the conciousness.
Itās function has ceased is fine, but the religious claim is that the brain is not required for the continuation of conciousness. If the claim is āthe brain isnāt needed for conciousnessā you donāt refute that by saying āthe brain died therefore conciousness has diedā
Do you believe conciousness is subject to the laws of the universe? Serious question. It decides how this plays
Thatās like saying you canāt disprove that the wafer and wine becomes the body and blood with the outward appearance of wafer and wine to our senses.