Of course it is symbolic. It is a physical transmission of a mystical concept. It is Jesu Holos. Yes, it is symbolism to rite and understanding.
I concede, I can’t really apply “ancient quantum physics” properly, since quantum physics are so new. I guess ancient quantum physics would only be sensible if I were using it in the context of somebody like David Bohm.
You are confusing being with ego. You is ego, another seperation that is a definition or category, an artifact of the human style of thought.
No, I’m saying that according to all the evidence, everything that makes you who you are is destroyed upon death.
All what evidence? I’m not being petty or throwing up red herrings here. You are saying that there is not one shard of evidence, of however dubious value, that might reasonably imply survival of some aspect of the person other than the no-longer-animate corpse. This is easily disproved by a wide assortment of things, from the Bible to “true ghost stories” to miraculous apparitions of saints to the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Now, if you want to argue against the validity of such evidence, that’s fine, and I’d back you on 98% of what you’d have to say. I simply have a pet peeve when people simply wave away evidence they personally find to be of dubious or no value as “there is no evidence.” As someone once said, “U.F.O.s exist. Flying saucers don’t.” (The point, of course, is that the first is a measure of our ignorance regarding the cause of particular reported phenomena; the second, the attempted ET explanation for the first.)
I once suggested here, as a useful metaphor, and hope you’ll be amused by the wordplay in it, that what religionists term mind or soul is actually the program running on the hardware of the brain. (I find caffeine to speed up the boot-up process in the mornings! ;)) Memory consists of “writing data to disk” although in a holographic mode and to the brain.
But if the computer on which it is running suffers a fatal error from which recovery is impossible, the data is lost – unless it’s been saved offsite.
It seems to me since Jesus was said to be present in person at the last supper when he called the bread and wine his body and blood, that he could have meant that all existence is united.So we are sustained by food and drink. Just as when he said when calling God his father refering to the 81st or 82d psalm in what ever Bible one uses,we are all a part of a greater whole.
It is a matter of interpetation, not ignorance.
Monavis
Here we have an example of why creedal statements are important. Clearly while Valteron has made the saltus fidei that one Doper is indeed a salamander, he has identified the wrong size, color, and member name. 
But that is where you contradict yourself, Airman. Your analogy does not hold up. If it were necssary to reconcile an article of faith with what I see with my own eyes, then nobody should be believe in transubstantiation, because the manifest evidence of your own eyes, nose and taste buds tells you it is unlevened wheat bread, both before and after consecration.
So even if you stand naked before me and demonstrate to my eyes, ears, smell and touch that you are a member of homo sapiens, I, by the same token, can still believe that you are really a giant green salamander. If you can totally ignore the evidence of your senses regarding the communion wafer in favour of an article of faith, then I can do the same regarding you.
Now then, I note that more than a few people have been put to death for refusing to accept transubstantiation over the centuries. Some of my Huguenot ancestors who were forcibly converted to Catholicism and then were caught spitting out “the body and blood of Christ” were put to death for profaning this sacred sustance.
Since I feel giant green salamenders like yourself may endanger children and small pets in out neighbourhood, may I be allowed to shoot you if you come into our neighbourhood? I would not be killing a human, after all.
I agree. That is exactly what I said in my last post. All you have to do is reconcile the apparent contradiction to yourself.
< sigh > Look, like most people, I tend to use “there is no evidence” and “all the evidence is worthless garbage” as synonyms. If someone is accused of murder, and his/her defenders say “there is no evidence” that he/she committed murder, everyone understands that they mean “there is no evidence beyond the word of the accuser”.
I know that version of the soul/afterlife. I always found the implications amusing ( and seldom explored ). For example, it implies you could have perfectly functioning people without souls - without the ability to “save offsite”. It implies you could “rip” multiple copies of the person as well; perhaps someone has written a story of an afterlife filled with multiple copies of people, one for every near-death experience. In fact, many people would consider this view of the afterlife to mean that only copies of us survive, and that the “real us” is the meat-machine brain, which still dies; the soul in that view would only be a copy that thinks it’s you.
Sure, I don’t think it’s a particularly great analogy, and I’m not claiming to support the doctrine anyway, but I think your position could be simplified to (and would be better expressed as) “I just don’t believe it”. People who believe in transubstantiation are not just making claims about how the objects in your universe operate in ways different to how you believe they do; they’re making claims about the fundamental nature of that universe.
No, it’s a change of substance - the traits are not detectable in the physical matter of the object itself; a person locked in a room with me at the moment I became a father, or locked in a room with the remaining stamp as the other was destroyed, would be able to observe absolutely no significant change.