You obviously have a computer. If you're interested in the official church doctrine of any particular religion, you can probably find it online. If you roll your own doctrine, then it doesn't really matter, does it? You are effectively your own God, and whatever the Holy Spirit whispers into your ear is the Truth©.
Hey if you made the claim regarding some "official Christian doctrine", and I request that you provide a link to that information, the onus of proof is on you.
I don't need an explanation coming from some new ager who is only promoting the notion of being politically correct.
Its just modern English used instead of the old English Bible language that was used two centuries ago. 11 And God, (the forces of Nature), said, Let the earth bring forth "grass," (i.e.; definition: the first sprouts of life), the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind (evolved), whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, (i.e.; definition: the first sprouts of life), and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit (evolved), whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God, (force behind Evolution), saw that it, (the Plant Kingdom), was (was making) good (adaptation to the environment).
If you want to take the position that there is no official, established Christian church doctrine, then that is your prerogative, so far as I am concerned. Then again, anyone can call themselves a Christian. It's not as if you need a license. Truth be told, I'm not really certain that you ever have claimed to be a Christian on this forum.
So you prefer old timers who harm the Bible by contending it defies scientific facts when you read it incorrectly???
You don't know too much about the older members of this thread. Look back across my postings and I am certain that you will find several occasions where I have referenced myself as a Christian. Furthermore, I have not taken any postion regarding the "official Christian doctrine" which you infer is in existence, I have simply requiested that you provide a link to such document. You made the claim, the onus of proof is on you.
Another of your presumptuous misrepresentations. You have no idea of what I am contending, you also have no idea other than what I post on this forum about my preferences. You seem to be at wits end and are now taking blind stabs in the dark.
Breath in a metaphorical sense. You do understand metaphors, correct? archaic the power of breathing; life. synonyms: life, life force "there was no breath left in him"
We don't actually have an objective answer. There are many theories. All that's certain is that the soul is that which gives "life". So, tell me what you think creates life, and that's your interpretation of a soul. I tried explaining to people that the meaning is very subjective, but they still are of the opinion I'm preaching religion, although that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Sorry to disappoint you, if you were looking for a specific answer, but I don't think you need my opinion on what "starts" life, so I'll let you decide for yourself. - - - Updated - - - This has nothing to do with angels. Its a separate discussion that someone instigated me in. Sorry if it derailed the thread.
how is it 'certain'? where did this certainty come from? have you verified it for yourself? if so, how did you do it?
I don't imagine that those who do subscribe to the POSSIBILITY of a multiverse have anything like certainty. The poster addressed said "All that's certain is that the soul is that which gives life". I want to know where this certainty comes from.
Its certain, because its the proper definition. Does that make sense? Definitions mean what they do. The inner context can be subjective, but are you denying the definition for soul is incorrect?
How about personal religious experience ? Uh oh... you can't accept that because you think it is not in accord with the scientific method.... well, observation is also one of those requirements of the scientific method. No scientists have observed a multiverse but, as you said, recognize it as a possibility. Then those scientists are betting on something that has not been observed and because it is a possibility, they hope, they feel, that it MUST EXIST. If those that are leaning on such a possibility happen to be Atheists, then I would say that they are formulating a new logical fallacy called Atheism of the Gaps.(not my original terminology... it was borrowed from : http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/06/05/the-flawed-logic-of-the-atheist/ )
I have no clue what an objective definition of a soul is - no one will actually tell me what the damn thing is. ie, what it's made of, where it resides, what it's for, what shape it is, etc etc. any given personal definition is opinion, so I'd have to know all 7 billion of them before I could effectively deny any of them. - - - Updated - - - you mean, 'feelings'? yeah, scientists generally don't spend a lot of lab time emoting conclusions.
Stop quoting me if you refuse to read what I wrote. I answered your questions multiple times, but you keep restating them like I never clarified. The soul is subjective. How many damn times do I need to say it, man? Sorry, but its getting frustrating at this point. Here's your final clarification, and unless the subject matter shifts this time, don't quote me............. The "soul" is the thing that starts life in a human. The very beginning, The "breath". People fiercely debate exactly what this means, so I can't give you a definitive answer I litterally stated for the fifth time, that the definition of soul is not subjective. That's like saying the definition of divine is objective. There is more than one interpretation. I can only give you a number of theories on what the soul is. Thus far, I've only been restating the definition.
You assume correctly [and since I've got German roots, I could even say that it's my third language, anyway, not using it, I've lost a bit of my German]. At the end it's also a kind of lapsus, since they think that these "Jinns" are quite smart [and with freedom of choice and self determination, while angels ...].
How can anything be certain with so many theories and very subjective. And you have claimed, soul is a word, nothing more. Clarification is needed on what you're driving at. Then the topic is over and no point of debate.
