But you tried to lump all Christians together… are you saying you made an error?
A common ‘attack’ as the best defense.
Maybe you should widen your circle of friends? I see them everywhere.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
A common ‘attack’ as the best defense.
Maybe you should widen your circle of friends? I see them everywhere.
McBell
Unbound
I have read the previous posts.
Ah, so as was already pointed out, the soul is the brain.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The sad part is that I think you're sincere. You really think that these two things are equivalent.
You're so deep in your chauvinism that you can't even recognize it.
Again: the sad part is that I think you're sincere.
As the saying goes, there's no hate like Christian love.
The sad part is that I think you're sincere. You really think that these two things are equivalent.
I am sincere and, yes, I made the equivalence because it was a good equivalent
Again, a usual statement of offense offered as a weak defense.
Thank you.
LOL… you did hit my funny bone on this statement.
Thank you.
The mind, not the soul.
As soon as you found an example of someone exhibiting consciousness without exhibiting brain activity, you would be justified in that conclusion.
Definition says different.
That would be when someone is brain dead and yet sees the doctors over the body until he is resuscitated. I hope you don’t ask for someone to test to see if what was reported is true unless you are a willing subject.
ElishaElijah
Return
I’m wondering why someone would say they are soulless? Not a good thingDefinition says different.
That would be when someone is brain dead and yet sees the doctors over the body until he is resuscitated. I hope you don’t ask for someone to test to see if what was reported is true unless you are a willing subject.
Common sense and evidence.
Ever seen someone's personality change because of a brain injury?
Yes, that is the definition. But being able to define something doesn't mean it actually exists.
We can find definitions of leprechauns, unicorns, and Bigfoot, but that doesn't mean they actually exist.
No, my position is that there is no evidence for a non-material. if evidence could be given, I would consider it.
The definition doesn't prove existence.
Yes, and we can define what it means to be a leprechaun. That doesn't mean that little green men with pots of gold near rainbows actually exist.
Please give *evidence* that a non-material soul actually exists.
McBell
Unbound
As a matter of fact, I have.
Nasty emotional stuffs it is.
Of course, I am speaking from the families side, not the side of the one with the injury.
I can only imagine (if that is even possible) how bad it is for the one with the injury.
Certainly. I've seen it, too.
I've never seen someone who claims that an incorporeal soul is the seat of the mind - or even the conscience - ever really reconcile what can happen in the case of a brain injury with their claim.
For those of us who believe that the mind is just "what the brain does," it makes perfect sense that damage to the brain would alter the mind.
For those who claim that the mind - or aspects of it like the conscience - are non-material, the impacts of a brain injury are hard to reconcile. I've seen some use the analogy that injuring someone's brain is analogous to damaging the antenna on a television, but this analogy doesn't work. A damaged antenna gets you static, not a completely different program.
They usually end up arguing that the post-injury person isn't the "real" person or "real soul," despite the fact that the person has thoughts, feelings, a personality, a conscience, etc., thereby conceding that these things can exist without being rooted in a soul.
ElishaElijah
Return
I love how the Bible explains things and love the Word of God, I found this to be true:
”For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.“
Hebrews 4:12-13 NKJV
”For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.“
Hebrews 4:12-13 NKJV
No evidence the letters were contemporary to Jesus, Actually Nothing is contemporary to Jesus not even Paul.
McBell
Unbound
Conflating definition with translation only makes you appear desperate.
All I can deduct here is that the whole of the field of Psychology which includes psychiatrists and other areas that use it, is the same as studying leprechauns, unicorns and bigfoots.
So, I guess we can close the subject.
I disagree.
contemporary /kən-tĕm′pə-rĕr″ē/
adjective
- Belonging to the same period of time.
"a fact documented by two contemporary sources." - Of about the same age.
McBell
Unbound
The definition stands as a definition for sure.
It epically fails as evidence.
The translation conflation also epically fails as evidence.
Now that you have demonstrated that you are merely going to dig in your heels and just repeat the same old song and dance, there is no reason to take you seriously on the topic.
If that makes you happy, I’m happy that you are happy!