continuation from theist zone_souls and death

[tackattack]

---

@ Tack I'll respond in detail this weekend, apols work pressure. Haven't forgot!
1a) I did ask you to clarify what you were asking for. The standard I would choose is diagnosis of brain death.
1b) I'll return to do this justice
3a) Its no use quote mining the bible..."Not one jot etc". The clarity of Mosiac law is that held by xtians today, even though they probably haven't read Deutoronmy and Leviticus. Either murder is or isn't a mortal sin. If its isn't that is news, if it is your analogy does NOT work.
3b) I was thinking about this. A better metaphor may be a shadow. It is intangible and a record of our actions (if not thoughts) and also if this is a better metaphor, who would people really believe if they thought their shaddow will be judged and NOT them. Ultimately, the thing about shaddows is that they do not really exist ;-)
3c) Need to put a detailed response on this. Consider that I would concede that (1+x) + (1+x) = (2+2x), as long as x = 0

---

It's a discussion not a timed debate, take as long as you like for as long as your interested.
1a) and what are your specific criteria from brain death? starvation of the cells till damage ensues or zero activity and blood flow?
1b)fair enough
3a)My point was that it is a sin to murder. Modern day Christian teaching is that sin is a willful rejection of God's law (ie. knowing what's right whether in your heart or in Mosaic law). Your example was of a brain damaged person who has no control (read will/choice) and murders. Would that person actually be choosing to kill by a force of will or intent on killing? long example

---

I asked a Christian from a Christian board who was non-denominational their idea of the law as it applies to them, I'll paraphrase:
God gave the laws to Moses, the Jews added to and used that law to condemn every little aspect of peoples life for domination (typically referred to those laws as the Law of death). Jesus came and said they were misusing the law and missed it's intent. That the law was valid and meant to guide people to a spiritual growth (typically referred to as the second covenant of the law of life) and we're not to condemn each other, that's God's job. The change was in that God condemns by the intent while man can only condemn by the action as we have no direct access to thoughts

---

I surmise it's not the character of the man to kill (check the word.. I said kill... there was a lot of it sanctioned in the Bible), merely a physical reaction and therefore not condemnable by the spirit of the law of Moses. If he intended to kill or chose to kill that would be murder, thus a distinction by intent.
3b) they don't exist? you mean they're not testable. You can't make a shadow conform to a shape (shadow puppets)? You can't make it go away? It's insubstantial, useful, natural, controllable , observable and we can explain it? Technically it can't be separated from it's "physical generator" but it can be simulated. If I was standing in the sun and had a shadow, and then poof I disappeared and my shadow stayed... that would be the analogy, separate distinctly from it's physical counterpart. You could argue that upon returning to witness it would then indistinguishable from the physical form, but if someone verified it remaining after I left, what would we have?
3c)but why would x be necessarily zero. in most cases experiencing substantially would equate x to 0, which is a large portion of our life. But in dealing with insubstantial, like say intuition, what if it's not being developed because we're constantly leaving it out of the equation, hence the inaccuracy of intuition?

Look forward to a response, but I'm wiped out.