Originally posted by twhitehead
If you find it delusional, then try answering my questions. You can't can you?Instead you are so embarrassed you are forced to make zombie jokes.

Why should I be embarrassed?

I think you're just trying to project your own embarrassment on me because you asked questions that do nothing to further the understanding of whether or not a soul would exist in a laboratory generated human body.

You don't know, and that's a source of embarrassment for you. Lighten up twhitehead, I'm not trying to embarrass you. I think the whole discussion is hilariously futile. No one knows the answer to that question! 😉

Originally posted by josephw
No.

The terms are defined by God who is the author of life.

But in the two sentences of yours that I quoted, you were differentiating between "the breath of life" and "life". On one hand, according to you, the "breath of life" gave someone a "living soul", while on the other the one without the "breath of life" would have "life" [till an old age, maybe] but "would die without a soul" despite having "life". So you are quite clearly differentiating between "the breath of life" and "life", right?

Care to explain what that difference is in your opinion?

Originally posted by josephw
It is my belief that in matters concerning "truth" there are no gray areas. Opinions are different. I prefer blue, you green. But a "final authority" concerning matters of life and living, where truth is expressed in unequivocal terms, subjective conjecture is not an option.

But, like I said before, you only feel this way about your Christian God figure and Christian folklore/ideology because you are a Christian. You would feel differently about notions like "final authority" and "gray areas" and so on if you were a Hindu, for example. Seeing as not everybody subscribes to Christian conjecture about our each and every uniqueness ~ identity ~ personhood etc. [what we might call our "souls"], surely you have some more insightful or persuasive or engaging things to say about your sincere and certain notions than merely stating that you know the "truth", you know the "truth", you know the "truth", over and over again?

Originally posted by FMF
But in the two sentences of yours that I quoted, you were differentiating between "the breath of life" and "life". On one hand, according to you, the "breath of life" gave someone a "living soul", while on the other the one without the "breath of life" would have "life" [till an old age, maybe] but "would die without a soul" despite having "life". So you are qui ...[text shortened]... e breath of life" and "life", right?

Care to explain what that difference is in your opinion?

"But in the two sentences of yours that I quoted, you were differentiating between "the breath of life" and "life"."

I did not. I reread our entire exchange on the previous pages and found nowhere where I said there was a difference between the breath of life and life. As usual FMF you take partial quotes and fabricate a misrepresentation of what was actually said, thereby derailing the topic of discussion, which is why I continually say you're obfuscating. I almost think you're doing it deliberately.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

God created man and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul. The curious thing here is, is that this is what this thread is about. Man dreams of playing God by imagining that he can generate a human body in a laboratory and then identifies that that body needs something more to make it living.

The question is asked, "would it have a soul?" Can man breath the breath of life into a body created by man in a laboratory and make it a "living soul?"

Is man God? I think he thinks he is.

"On one hand, according to you, the "breath of life" gave someone a "living soul",.."

Not according to me, according to God's Word.

"...while on the other the one without the "breath of life" would have "life"..."

I didn't say that.

"...[till an old age, maybe] but "would die without a soul" despite having "life"."

You twisted it up here. If a body could be created in a laboratory one might assume it would have a pulse. The question is whether it would have a soul. Having a live body doesn't mean it would have a soul, which is inferred by the question.

"So you are quite clearly differentiating between "the breath of life" and "life", right?"

No.

Originally posted by FMF
But, like I said before, you only feel this way about your Christian God figure and Christian folklore/ideology because you are a Christian. You would feel differently about notions like "final authority" and "gray areas" and so on if you were a Hindu, for example. Seeing as not everybody subscribes to Christian conjecture about our each and every uniqueness ~ i ...[text shortened]... ting that you know the "truth", you know the "truth", you know the "truth", over and over again?

You have no idea how I "feel" about God. Or why.

What you know is what I tell you I know, and what I know about God is what God tells me about Himself in His Holy Word.

I can't make it any easier for you to understand.

Originally posted by josephw
You have no idea how I "feel" about God. Or why.

What you know is what I tell you I know, and what I know about God is what God tells me about Himself in His Holy Word.

I can't make it any easier for you to understand.

Except you have to BELIEVE the bible is the word of god. I have made my position clear, the bible is totally man made with the writers giving human attributes to your made up god where they write such ditties as 'I am a jealous god' as if a deity capable of snapping its theoretical fingers and calling in entire universes would somehow be JEALOUS of humans. How can you fall for such obvious scams?

What happened to your critical thinking ability?

Originally posted by josephw
Why should I be embarrassed?

Because you can't answer my question, can you?

I think you're just trying to project your own embarrassment on me because you asked questions that do nothing to further the understanding of whether or not a soul would exist in a laboratory generated human body.
Yet you can't answer them can you?

You don't know, and that's a source of embarrassment for you.
Actually, I do know.

No one knows the answer to that question! 😉
Yet half the people here, claim to know the answer. What do you know about it that assures you that the answer is unknowable?

And lastly, you claimed something I said was the most delusional thing you've ever heard. Please have the decency to explain why you found it delusional.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because you can't answer my question, can you?

[b]I think you're just trying to project your own embarrassment on me because you asked questions that do nothing to further the understanding of whether or not a soul would exist in a laboratory generated human body.
Yet you can't answer them can you?

You don't know, and that's a source of emba ...[text shortened]... usional thing you've ever heard. Please have the decency to explain why you found it delusional.

Originally posted by josephw
Why should I be embarrassed?

"Because you can't answer my question, can you?"

Are you referring to your post back on page 5? There are more than one question, which one are you talking about?

I think you're just trying to project your own embarrassment on me because you asked questions that do nothing to further the understanding of whether or not a soul would exist in a laboratory generated human body.

"Yet you can't answer them can you?"

That's your answer to the statement above? You're crisscrossing the contextual concepts from multiple posts. At least that's how it appears to me.

You don't know, and that's a source of embarrassment for you.

"Actually, I do know."

Know what? That a laboratory generated human body has a soul?

No one knows the answer to that question!

"Yet half the people here, claim to know the answer. What do you know about it that assures you that the answer is unknowable?"

I haven't heard anyone here but you say they know the answer. The answer isn't knowable until it's been proven. I'd like to know how you know!

"And lastly, you claimed something I said was the most delusional thing you've ever heard. Please have the decency to explain why you found it delusional."

Sorry that you think I'm being indecent, but the statement "A human being is a multicellular life form and does not have a well defined property of being 'alive' or 'dead' ", makes no sense. If a human being has a heartbeat I would consider that to be a well defined property of being alive. The opposite is true as well.

Perhaps you would like to explain what you meant, because on the surface of it, it sounds delusional. 😕

Originally posted by josephw
You twisted it up here. If a body could be created in a laboratory one might assume it would have a pulse. The question is whether it would have a soul. Having a live body doesn't mean it would have a soul, which is inferred by the question.

So you believe a human being can be alive, walk around, interact with other humans, procreate, and live till an old age, and can do all this without having a soul?

Originally posted by josephw
You have no idea how I "feel" about God. Or why.

Of course I do. I know Christianity and Christians very well indeed having lived among them my entire life and having been a Christian myself for many years.

Originally posted by josephw
As usual FMF you take partial quotes and fabricate a misrepresentation of what was actually said, thereby derailing the topic of discussion, which is why I continually say you're obfuscating. I almost think you're doing it deliberately.

But I quoted you verbatim and my question is point blank and rooted entirely in what you said.