Yes, well, I take your point. And let's not forget all the babies drowned in the Flood and the Egyptian first-borns killed by the angels in the days of Moses. If God is omnipotent, then he is also responsible for the all suffering and deaths of every child who has ever lived.
He's responsible for the death of everything that ever lived though, no? Not just babies?
You know... Yes. It's a fair point to a non-spiritual person, however, most people who believe in the afterlife also believe that they
will exist beyond their death in some form or another, often retaining their consciousness in the process. It diminishes the finality of death to the self-perceived concept of I
, so I see the appeal, at least until you consider just how vast eternity is... And then square it. In any case, my point is that death means something different to someone who doesn't view it as the end of the road for the individual consciousness. It's a baseless rationalisation to any one outside such a faith, of course, but it does appear compelling and powerful to any one within.
Ah, the rights and wrongs and conceptual truths and falsehoods... So subjective as to render them useless in practically any intelligent conversation, yet there they are, always creeping up regardless. People put too much stock in their own feelings, is what I think. Whatever. What was I talking about?
Yes, but the Body and Blood of Christ remain in the form of bread and wine, so consuming them doesn't qualify as cannibalism.
That's a fine line to walk, but I have a different point to raise on the subject; if the wine does not literally turn into blood, and it does not figuratively turn into blood (As in; something is claimed to actually
[read: physically] happen to the wine, as opposed to it being a metaphor of sorts) in what way does
then the wine turn into blood? Does it contain like... Virtual leukocytes and such?