clones

Prodigal Son · Post by **Prodigal Son** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:38 am

if clones would be exact replicas of another person created after a soul was already assigned, would God give them a soul?

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:05 pm

colors wrote:if clones would be exact replicas of another person created after a soul was already assigned, would God give them a soul?

I definately think so. How would a clone actual be any different than a pair of twins?

Prodigal Son · Post by **Prodigal Son** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:32 pm

twins would have been intended by God and assigned souls before birth...i guess.

a clone would be a replica of a person who was already assigned a soul...no soul left for the clone.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:52 pm

got gives each human a new soul upon creation

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 9:01 pm

I actually held that position, MM, until about a month ago. There are basically three positions on it.

1) Creationism: God gives each person a soul at some time during development (probably conception)

2) Traducianism: The soul is transmitted along with the body through the process of natural generation.

3) Preexistence: God created all souls at a point in the past. Variations of this theory abound as to why and how each person has their particular soul. This is foundational for those who believe in reincarnation.

Without getting detailed, it seems to me the first position would be the "common sense" position, but I found one objection in particular to be fatal. Namely, it implies one of two ideas that I can't accept. Either (a) God creates the soul sinless at some moment of development, but it becomes sinful upon its binding with the flesh, or (b), God creates the new soul necessarily sinful.

I reject (a) because it is too close to gnosticism, and I do not believe that the flesh is, by itself, sinful. How could Jesus have avoided a sin nature if Flesh, being simply Flesh, is evil?

I reject (b) because I believe in a literal Fall of Man. Adam's soul was created in a state of moral innocence, and it was his action that resulted in its condemnation. To imply that God is capable of creating the morally innocent soul today, but chooses not to because Adam messed up, seems to me to be incompatible with the nature of God.

The second position seems much more natural to me, then. God created the entire race of Man--including the soul--in His creation of Adam. Not only does man have the ability to physically reproduce after his own kind, but he has the ability to spiritually reproduce after his own kind as well. This explains why Jesus did not have the sin-nature. He was not begotten of Man, but by the Holy Spirit.

Thoughts?

Oh, and to keep this on topic, I'd then say that clones do have a soul in the same way twins do. It's a part of the natural development process.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:16 pm

That's the view I believe J.P. Moreland takes Jac (traducianism), but I'm not sure what position I take just yet although I'm strongly leaning towards a traducianist view. Yet, the one issue I have is that Adam's physical body was formed, and then had life breathed into it. This seems to suggest to me that creationism is valid with Adam, and so it can't be ruled out as a valid alternative. My thoughts on this is that perhaps creationism is only applicable with Adam (and Eve maybe), and then offspring since then follows traducianism. Seems to make sense.

One reason I also swing towards the traducian position is because I'm currently inclined to take the view that only one underlining substance exists when it comes to any sort of sentient life such as ourselves. I have formulated this idea quite recently. I suppose in some sense it could be said that I'm a Monist (as I believe in one underlining substance), but that is not precisely true. Unlike a rock which is purely one simple substance that is physical, I'm inclined to believe that there is one underlining essense (substance) that consists of both physical and soulish substances. On such a view, the traducianist position makes really good sense. I'm hoping to think on it more and one day expand upon it, but it is very closely related to Aristotelian/Thomistic dualism, a position I gravitated towards.

Kurieuo.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 5:39 pm

I'd say that I agree that in Adam's case, creationism applies. You'd almost have to, unless you were a theistic evolutionist. Like I said, I only adopted the position about a month ago or so (the objection I mentioned was really forceful in my mind!) . . . it's always possible to change again. Like any "new" view, I'm still feeling out its foundations. Are there those that see a contradiction in assuming creationism for Adam but not for everyone else? It seems to me that is built in the view itself--God created the entire human in the person of Adam, giving him the ability to reproduce after himself both physically and spiritually.

If we go even further in your direction, K, we could probably just drop off the last two words completely, hmm? I've played with monism (mostly because it was the Jewish position). I don't know if I accept it or not, yet. The waters start to get a little deep, there . . .

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:11 am

Really, I'm still unable to formulate a detailed position of body and soul that I would be satisfied with and would be compatible with my other theological beliefs. Any form of Monism I advocate wouldn't be a physicalist form, but rather more along the lines of Merleau-Ponty's Body-Subject view (if you're familiar with such a position). Yet, I don't want to give the wrong impression, I'm still best placed in the substance dualist camp.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:49 am

Jac3510 wrote:I reject (b) because I believe in a literal Fall of Man. Adam's soul was created in a state of moral innocence, and it was his action that resulted in its condemnation. To imply that God is capable of creating the morally innocent soul today, but chooses not to because Adam messed up, seems to me to be incompatible with the nature of God.

I was thinking through my beliefs to sort out what I personally believe and reject about soul, body and so forth as its been a long time coming formulating my own opinion based on everything I've learnt up until now. In doing so I recognised that traducianism makes good sense out of the doctrine of original sin... then I remembered, Jac basically made this point (perhaps it lodged in my subconsciousness?). So I believe your arguments make a very persuasive argument for Christians to take a traducian view. And I now understand how "original sin" could be something inherited, another issue I've had on the backburner for some time.

Kurieuo.

RGeeB · Post by **RGeeB** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:35 am

Jac3510 wrote:The second position seems much more natural to me, then. God created the entire race of Man--including the soul--in His creation of Adam. Not only does man have the ability to physically reproduce after his own kind, but he has the ability to spiritually reproduce after his own kind as well. This explains why Jesus did not have the sin-nature. He was not begotten of Man, but by the Holy Spirit.

Thoughts?

That explains why I behave like my dad, even though I didn't observe him long enough to learn!

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:48 am

I have nothing to add except that this is an interesting discussion in the new form it's taken.

The concept that humans can reproduce not only physically but also sprititually is very interesting... I've never thought much about it, but I sort of always just assumed position 1) as summarized by Jac, that God would give an embryo a soul. OTOH, humans certainly do have the abilty to bring a new creature (both body and soul) into existance... Whether with help from God on a spiritual level or not is an interesting question.

This would also open to the door to the possibility that we may inherit spiritual traits from our parents just like physical ones... Does this have any implication on generational blessings?

Now if we take option 2) and flesh it out a little, there are also interesting conclusions. One being that there is no spirit without flesh? Hmmm... Not so comfortable with that either.

And finally, what does the Bible say about God creating each of us? What does it say about the unborn child?

Anyways, like I said I don't really have anything to add, but you guys have got me thinking about this. If/when I start to form conclusions I'll definately relay them here.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:19 am

There is soooo much I want to reply to, but the past few weeks have been so very, very hectic

Anyway, I'm at work, so I don't have any time to comment now, but I just wanted to note that the more I think about this, the more I'm sold on (2). I think it just explains a lot of things in a lot of ways. What I'd like to explore is the idea of monism in relationship, though, because I'm a pretty firm dichotomist (I don't think that's a word!). I definitely don't buy into trichotomy (belief that humans are made up of three distinct essences, namely, mind, body, and soul).

Ah well . . . 'till tonight.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:53 pm

I wonder if it's possible for two or more people to share a soul... Or perhaps to have souls being "born" in a manner similar to siameze twins(connected to each other)

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:07 pm

siameze twins aren't sharing a body at all, rather they are two bodies that are connected.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:56 pm

That's what I said :p

Evidence for God from Science

clones

clones

Re: clones