26 Feb 15
Originally posted by OdBodYou would just have to ask that person someday when it happens.
Scenario: A person dies and some of his cells have been preserved. A clone is grown from them. Does the original soul return to be with the new organism, or does a new one develop without the process of sexual union?
Originally posted by OdBodEve was basically a clone of Adam taken from his rib, but in the female variety. So when God's life-giving spirit was passed to the body of Eve, she became a living soul.
Scenario: A person dies and some of his cells have been preserved. A clone is grown from them. Does the original soul return to be with the new organism, or does a new one develop without the process of sexual union?
Originally posted by OdBodI have asked this many times on this forum, including the question of whether or not identical twins share a soul. No answers have been forthcoming. Maybe we should ask Suzianne as she claimed to know something about souls (although she seems to want to keep the knowledge to herself).
Scenario: A person dies and some of his cells have been preserved. A clone is grown from them. Does the original soul return to be with the new organism, or does a new one develop without the process of sexual union?
One would think that issues like this that are absolutely central to theistic ideas would be a major topic of discussion amoungst theists, but in my experience they avoid it like the plague.
Yet ask someone to show that God is Holy according to scripture and they will write a 10,000 word essay.
26 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you look carefully at the post above yours you'll see that RJHinds has answered your question.
I have asked this many times on this forum, including the question of whether or not identical twins share a soul. No answers have been forthcoming. Maybe we should ask Suzianne as she claimed to know something about souls (although she seems to want to keep the knowledge to herself).
One would think that issues like this that are absolutely central to ...[text shortened]... someone to show that God is Holy according to scripture and they will write a 10,000 word essay.
26 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo your god's 'life giving spirit' will be passed to the body of a clone to become a living soul?
Eve was basically a clone of Adam taken from his rib, but in the female variety. So when God's life-giving spirit was passed to the body of Eve, she became a living soul.
26 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry TW didn't mean to use your idea, my work prevents me from being a permanent member, I must miss a lot. I was hoping that by suggesting the death of the donor before development it would spark discussion , because the original soul would be elsewhere. As I understand it the soul becomes part of the human during fertilisation , which of course has huge implications for the clone.
I have asked this many times on this forum, including the question of whether or not identical twins share a soul. No answers have been forthcoming. Maybe we should ask Suzianne as she claimed to know something about souls (although she seems to want to keep the knowledge to herself).
One would think that issues like this that are absolutely central to ...[text shortened]... someone to show that God is Holy according to scripture and they will write a 10,000 word essay.
26 Feb 15
Originally posted by OdBodWhy is there this insistence there is a soul in the first place? Has one been measured somehow? Do you maybe lose some weight when you die, or in other words, does a soul have mass? Or is it like photons, no mass?
But what happens if the donor dies before the clone is developed?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI disagree, he merely discusses a special case where God directly creates the very first clone of the very first human in order to establish a counterpart to the male of our species. There is neither mention nor implication of any other such direct godly intervention in the op as far as I can tell.
If you look carefully at the post above yours you'll see that RJHinds has answered your question.
26 Feb 15
4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI think if you try to argue the existence of the soul with a person of faith you will rarely succeed, Cognitive Dissonance sets in and can you really blame them, so much time and emotional investment . The writers of the bible had no idea of how much science would and is advancing. As a result they could not produce a text that could totally protect their religious control system. As science advances religious thinking must die or become more extreme in order to cope with ever increasing information that undermines it's assertions. The soul/ clone dichotomy is a small example of this, and maybe easier to argue without cog/dis setting in.
Why is there this insistence there is a soul in the first place? Has one been measured somehow? Do you maybe lose some weight when you die, or in other words, does a soul have mass? Or is it like photons, no mass?
26 Feb 15
Originally posted by AgergTo create a clone you need, at the very least, universal stem cells. So any old piece of tissue wouldn't do. If you only have, for instance, a blood sample you'd need either some process to transform the blood cells into universal stem cells or to transfer the cell nucleus into a host egg cell for the cells to start dividing and differentiating into all the types of cell one finds in the body. A theist would, presumably, argue that this is sufficiently close to fertilization for the soul to be added then. If God's having the day off or for some reason and a soul isn't available the procedure fails and no theological zombie is produced. Basically what I'm getting at is that this line of argument is just too easily deflected with "God sorts it out".
I disagree, he merely discusses a special case where God directly creates the very first clone of the very first human in order to establish a counterpart to the male of our species. There is neither mention nor implication of any other such direct godly intervention in the op as far as I can tell.
The more interesting question is what is a soul? These things, apparently, are different from your mind, so memories aren't included. This implies that come doomsday the poor thing will be being judged for things it cannot remember doing, which I imagine being a bewildering experience for it. Different religions have different concepts of what a soul is. The Abrahamic religions have all living things having souls, but only human souls are immortal. Other religions have immortal souls for living things, and animists have non-living things having a soul as well. So there isn't much of a consensus amongst the theists.
So a good question to continue the thread with is: do humans have a essential spiritual component, which may or may not include the mind, and what is it?
26 Feb 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtUnless I'm mistaken,the vast majority of the religious community see the moment of conception as special, not some time after in respect of the soul. If the argument is simple it provides less wriggle room.
To create a clone you need, at the very least, universal stem cells. So any old piece of tissue wouldn't do. If you only have, for instance, a blood sample you'd need either some process to transform the blood cells into universal stem cells or to transfer the cell nucleus into a host egg cell for the cells to start dividing and differentiating into al ...[text shortened]... ans have a essential spiritual component, which may or may not include the mind, and what is it?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
27 Feb 15
Originally posted by OdBodA person has "soul life" the minute he or she takes their first breath.
Scenario: A person dies and some of his cells have been preserved. A clone is grown from them. Does the original soul return to be with the new organism, or does a new one develop without the process of sexual union?
They lose their soul life at their last breath.