Well, blather about the soul notwithstanding, you're making a fundamental error in categorizing things.
Scientifically, a being is living if it has reactions to stimuli, grows, has metabolic processes, and is capable of reproduction. Your definition is really lacking.
Viruses really don't meet the criteria. They mostly just reproduce, but even then they need a host to do so. And not in the parasite manner of using the host for nutrients, they hijack a cell and use it to reproduce because they can't by themselves. They appear alive though. And can "die" as it were.
And you're fixated on the "characteristics of living and non-living" and saying they are somehow both. Most people would say they aren't really "alive" though, but the processes they do carry out make them different than say, a rock, bit of metal, or something else that is more obviously not living.
And, finally, just because you want to quibble over a definition doesn't mean the thing itself isn't there. If someone is arguing that "action figures" are really dolls, it doesn't mean that the He-Man toy in question that people can see, experiment on, and interact with doesn't exist, you twit.