nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: + +
no edit summary
* I was being controversial in the hope of provoking some debate here. The nature of the soul is a rather vaguely-defined thing, I would like to see some discussion take place over it.
* I was being controversial in the hope of provoking some debate here. The nature of the soul is a rather vaguely-defined thing, I would like to see some discussion take place over it.
- Suricou
- Suricou
::I think you're spinning your wheels a bit unless you can get something more concrete. Wanting to debate philosophical questions isn't going to make it into the final article in any form that detracts from the 'concise' nature of conservapedia. This isn't wiki. Trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial isn't what conservapedia is all about. On the other hand, if you dig up meaningful information that adds to the knowledge of the soul, then by all means it will find its way into the article. I included your question on the soul in regard to abortion because that is a meaningful consideration. Talking about if twins have 1/2 a soul or what happens with chimeras is silly. If you want to dig and get research on the early church fathers and their concept of a soul and how that ties into modern brain function, some form of that would probably stay as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 30 May 2007 (EDT)