Question for Christians and even Non-Christians?
- Thread starter SpursDynasty
- Start date
what are you talking about? difficulty only merits a response?
there are plenty of people who believe that they are limited to their powers of human capapibility and don't receive the soul until they die and go to a non-physical realm of heaven. Denying dualism does not mean you can't/don't believe in Christ.
if you think this question is clear and vanilla then you haven't gave it much thought.
I was being facetious.
I didn't know how to even attempt to answer your first question.
To begin with, we need to define "soul".
According to dictionary.com, "soul" had 13 entries.
This is the most popular:
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
So, if we accept this definition (and even if we didn't) than my answer is "yes".
I believe the "soul" is a seperate entity from the rest of the body.
A person can be brain dead and still have a functioning soul.
I didn't know how to even attempt to answer your first question.
To begin with, we need to define "soul".
According to dictionary.com, "soul" had 13 entries.
This is the most popular:
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
So, if we accept this definition (and even if we didn't) than my answer is "yes".
I believe the "soul" is a seperate entity from the rest of the body.
A person can be brain dead and still have a functioning soul.
...so, apologies to SpursDynasty for my intrusion into his thread, but getting back to my earlier question, and I don't want to be a pain here; but just to follow this "Androgynous Son of Adam" theory in some logical direction: If one or the other brother had female sex organs and had borne a child, who was the father?
The really sad thing about your question is that theologians ponder/discuss this type of thing, as if debating the anatomy of fictional characters is of any real import. As Buddy showed, it is actually part of some heated debates, and has been for centuries. The belly-button debate brings me to a question of equal significance: If Batman and Spiderman fought, who would win?
Buddy can also tell you there are those who believe the bible is the undisputed word of God. They avoid belly button debates and when asked "why doesn't God heal amputees?", they say "I don't know".
They try to live their lives being faithful to the word of God and in turn, they say that God has been faithful to them.
Their lives seem to be far more active and abundant than mine or anyone else I know.
Sorry for my earlier posts about androgyny. Adam and Eve did have some daughters, as I have just learned on wikipedia. Quoting from the Adam article...
"Only three of Adam's children (Cain, Abel and Seth) are explicitly named in Genesis, although it does state that there were other sons and daughters as well (Genesis 5:4)."
My bad. So, just thinking this through a bit, if Adam and Eve had daughters, and these daughters had babies, then who were the fathers of those babies?
"Only three of Adam's children (Cain, Abel and Seth) are explicitly named in Genesis, although it does state that there were other sons and daughters as well (Genesis 5:4)."
My bad. So, just thinking this through a bit, if Adam and Eve had daughters, and these daughters had babies, then who were the fathers of those babies?
