In fact I never even hinted at theology
I ... suggested that you were confusing Theology
You used that word where it wasn't relevant or warranted on my suggestion that you are using "etc." to be able to change goalposts later. Sure enough, your "etc." came in handy as you have to change the properties if a thing your teacher told you is not "life" but it has all the properties you mention. And all the while, Theology was completely irrelevant in any sense of the word.
How then can "fire" have global properties
I never said "fire" has global properties. I was aware from the beginning that your "etc." is meant to hide your ignorance, and you were going to change goalposts later. And sure enough, you post later about "no global properties" so that you can pick and choose.
The definition in the dictionary is rather ambiguous
Which is what I have been saying - it is not a word deserving of scientific analysis. It has been used for "life as we know (knew) it". It doesn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny a 7th grader can subject it to. But if you insist on an ignorant "scientific" analysis on a decidedly unscientific word, it would definitely appear to be rambling to all smart people. Your taking offence at this being pointed out won't help much.
If you notice, the dictionary definition is already disagrees with established science. Protists and fungi are frequently classified as "life" but neither plant nor animal - whereas dictionary definition ties itself to animals and plants. And the rest of the properties from the dictionary definition are satisfied by fire, at least as much as other accepted forms of life.
So there are only 2 logical options - accept fire as "life"; or accept that "life" is not a word deserving of scientific analysis.
But you choose a third, illogical option - analyze "life" as if it meant something unambiguous, yet not accept fire. No wonder you come across as a moron.