I have read about the material soul lots of times on CAF. You just have to be in tune with 21st century terminology. I am sure that many, not all, of our guests can spot references to the material soul. However, serious discussion of that is now prohibited by the ban on evolution.
I don’t change the font size unless I wish to emphasize something strongly and I do that very rarely (and not in this thread). All I do is change the type of print and I return it to the default at the end of my post.Please forgive me for mentioning it but your user name need not be reflected in the size of font you use! It makes your posts more difficult to read - and I don’t think web space is a factor in the economic crisis.
Many thanks. Excellent for the myopic like me!
Tonrey, there is nothing wrong with Kanzi’s soul either. His immensely complex and highly efficient brain can serve as a means of formulating, expressing and communicating an abstract, profound knowledge of reality. He can use 500 words, and understands 3,000 words. See this fascinating video: youtube.com/watch?v=h7IdghtkKmA&feature=related
I use the Century Gothic font because I have poor vision. My glasses broke and can’t be fixed because the script expired. I’m wearing very old glasses that don’t have the special crystals I need in the lenses and that aren’t strong enough. I paid $800 for those glasses that broke. I don’t have any money for a new pair. I just don’t. I have problems reading posts that use the default font. And I can’t change the size of the print on my screen because when I updated something (I don’t know what it was) that option was removed. Now when I read posts for awhile I often get a headache. My eye muscles are very weak and my eyes constantly focus and focus.Many thanks. Excellent for the myopic like me!
You can get it for $6 on the Kindle. The NT is exactly the same. The OT is slightly better, but still bad: overall, it’s hard to tell the difference. The register of English has been raised slightly; there are no important “translational” or doctrinal differences.
Sir Charles Sherrington believed - with good reason - that it is impossible to know at what level of life the soul emerges… but wonderful though they are there is no evidence that animals have spiritual awareness or are morally responsible for their behaviour. (Perhaps the same could be said of some human beings!)
No need to apologise. This forum is not intended for intellectual robots! We sympathise with you and hope you find a speedy solution.
Tony, you raise an interesting question, but I think it is problematical for you to connect the existence of a soul with spiritual awareness or moral responsibility. It seems to me more likely that possessing an immortal soul has more to do with having the right kind of DNA
Wouldn’t that mean we could devise a chemical sequencing test for the presence of a immortal soul?
Chemical sequencing would reveal nothing in this regard. But DNA sequencing might tell us whether the entity in question is worthy of having a soul infused.
You anticipated my question! But it’s not clear how or what DNA would tell us.
Emphasis mine.
The morality of that appears highly questionable. The test might say I’m not worthy of having a soul, or that no Spanish were ever worthy of having a soul. On what scientific basis? How could you test your test?
Curious. It must have some connection, unless it is mere coincidence that spiritual souls are always found associated with human DNA, but never found associated with any other type of DNA.
IT WORKED! (It’s a good thing that Ctrl - reduces the size of the font!)
Oh, you can test for human DNA. If it has human DNA it is capable of having a soul. If it does not have DNA – even if it is the pre-human parent of someone with DNA – is is incapable of bearing an “immortal soul.” That is the argument, at least.The morality of that appears highly questionable. The test might say I’m not worthy of having a soul, or that no Spanish were ever worthy of having a soul. On what scientific basis? How could you test your test?