clones

[Kurieuo]

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)

Like the Trinity perhaps?

Kurieuo.

[Mastermind]

Ahh, why didn't I think of that?

[Anonymous]

two souls connected? well for souls to be alive there all connected to God so...

[Mastermind]

I meant with each other. I remember hearing about two people getting visions of each other's lives at random during the night, and the investigators thought it was a possibility.

[Jac3510]

The problem, MM, is what you mean by "connected" souls. Connected bodies are pretty easy, because a body is a complex organism. It's easy to see how two complex organisms can share some of the same components.

On the flip side, the soul (we really should say "spirit" if we want to be technical) isn't going to be a complex organism at all. Here, though, we will have to flatly declare what sort of model we're working with so far as human composition goes. As I noted previously, I would say that man is a "bipartite unity." In other words, he has a material aspect (the body) and an immaterial aspect (the spirit), the collective of which we refer to as the "soul." i.e., "Those poor souls." (This seems, to me, to be the picture the Bible presents . . . if we want to get in depth with that, perhaps we should start another thread?)

Now, I don't see how a man's spirit (ruach and [/i]pneuma[/i]) could be complex. That would imply it was made up of more basic "substances" put together in some fashion so as to create some new, functional whole. It does, however, generate "complex" traits, such as thinking (Is. 29:24), remembering (Ps. 77:6), humility (Matt. 5:3), grief (Gen. 26:53), etc.

We could also talk about the "heart," "conscience," "mind," and "will" of man, but I don't think we could make much of a case that these things "make up" the spirit in the same way a heart, lungs, arms, brain, etc. make up the body.

My whole point is that if the spirit is a simple "substance," then I can't imagine how two people could "share" a soul. To what would it be connected? What would hold this connection? What would this imply about the make-up of the soul? The only way to consider the possibility, it seems to me, would be to take a traducian view, but that would limit the phenomena only to "siamese" twins and their likes.

I wish I had some time to develop a really good concept of nature of man . . . thoughts?

[Prodigal Son]

so if humans probably reproduce spiritually as well as biologically, clones would not have souls, you think? unlike twins who split (giving a soul time to split into two separate bodies), a clone would be a biological replica of one body and one soul. you can't really replicate a soul i think.

[Jac3510]

I don't see why a clone wouldn't have a soul . . . cloning, at least today, basically works through extremely fast development. You still have to go through the growth process. The body may be a replication, but why must the soul be? Again, we have to differentiate, I think, between the complex nature of the body and the simple nature of the soul. To replicate a body is to make sure that certain DNA sequences are exactly the same and that certain physical features are the same, but what does a soul possess that correlates to these bodily traits?

[Mastermind]

We don't know, actually. You can't exactly do scientific research on souls....

[Mastermind]

Is the mind part of the spirit though? or is it a separate entity?

[Kurieuo]

On the flip side, the soul (we really should say "spirit" if we want to be technical) isn't going to be a complex organism at all.

Actually, to be technical I think "soul" is more appropriate, as many do not consider "soul" to be synonymous for "spirit." I myself believe there to be a distinction between soul (i.e., our essense), and our spirit which I more understand as a "spiritual body" attached to soul. Although I know "spirit" can also be used for "soul", I believe keeping them distinct is much less confusing all round.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

Is the mind part of the spirit though? or is it a separate entity?

Cartesian dualists generally make a distinction between the mind and body, believing the mind to be synonymous for the soul. Thomistic dualists (which I more align myself with) believe mind processes are carried out by the physical body, but they are grounded upon the soul which controls the thinking.

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

On the flip side, the soul (we really should say "spirit" if we want to be technical) isn't going to be a complex organism at all.

Actually, to be technical I think "soul" is more appropriate, as many do not consider "soul" to be synonymous for "spirit." I myself believe there to be a distinction between soul (i.e., our essense), and our spirit which I more understand as a "spiritual body" attached to soul. Although I know "spirit" can also be used for "soul", I believe keeping them distinct is much less confusing all round.

Kurieuo.

As noted previously, it sort of depends on your presumptions about the make up of the human being. I don't really buy into the distinction that you make . . .

As for the language itself, a "soul" can refer to both the whole person or only to the material (reference). On the flip side, a "spirit," in relationship to humans, can only refer to the immaterial, immortal part of the self (reference). If, then, "soul" is synonymous with "spirit" on the immaterial level, but "spirit" is not synonymous with "soul" at the "big picture" level, I'd say we should use the terminology I suggested

Regardless, that part is just semantics. More important is our understanding of human nature. Could you clarify your position more? I think I've laid out mine pretty well. How would you relate to my discussion of the bipartite unity versus a trichotomy?

[Kurieuo]

As for the language itself, a "soul" can refer to both the whole person or only to the material (reference). On the flip side, a "spirit," in relationship to humans, can only refer to the immaterial, immortal part of the self (reference). If, then, "soul" is synonymous with "spirit" on the immaterial level, but "spirit" is not synonymous with "soul" at the "big picture" level, I'd say we should use the terminology I suggested

Regardless, that part is just semantics.

I'm not sure dictionaries really have the authority to set a particular definition for terms used in deep philosophical issues on metaphysics . Yet, I have observed that many meanings can be attached to these words, "spirit" and "soul", and you will see many of these meanings given by the dictionary. The way I'm intending "soul" to be used is perhaps more how you define "spirit" in the above, and when in a body (spiritual body or physical body), the soul simply becomes a "living soul" being able to interact with the world around it.

I would disagree that "spirit" is an immortal part of the self, rather I understand the soul to be immortal. And if by immaterial you mean non-physical, then I would agree the spirit is immaterial (as is the soul), but I believe the spirit has its own bodily substance that is spirit (unlike the soul which has no "bodily" substance). Although no doubt a large part of our disagreement perhaps lies with semantics, we do appear to have very different understandings of what is actually involved.

Question: How do you think Adam and Eve died at the time they sinned—would you say their soul died, or was it their spirit, or? I believe this shows a major distinction between the two. How it is we can experience God if we don't have a body with the capacity that allows us to experience God? This is what the spirit is, and Scripture tells us that we become born of the spirit when we come to Christ.

The Christian theological implications of saying the spirit is equivilant to the immaterial soul runs very deep and I've discovered touches on much theology surrounding the after-life, salvation, the fall, sin, and many other doctrines. I also just want to say that my beliefs I detail specifically on this area are not something I'm just speaking out on without much reading, thought, and development, but they are something I have read into and refined over time (though I still admit I could be be easily wrong on many things ).

An article I'd recommend to all, which helps to explain the distinctions between the body (physical), soul, and spirit in a similar manner I understand, can be read at http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/dodger/chapter3.html

Kurieuo.

[Jac3510]

I'm not sure dictionaries really have the authority to set a particular definition for terms used in deep philosophical issues on metaphysics .

Eh, I mention them because the actual purpose of a dictionary is to define a word's semantic range. Ideally, I would use Oxford's or some other equivelant, but I thought that would be easy and get the point across. I just wanted to show that the reasoning of using my particular terminology is based on "range of meaning" as defined by english dictionaries. In other words, the argument for using those words are based on adequacy. "Soul" can encompass "spirit," where as the reverse is not true. Of course, that doesn't hold in your model, but you make distinctions that I don't, at this time, at least.

Yet, I have observed that many meanings can be attached to these words, "spirit" and "soul", and you will see many of these meanings given by the dictionary. The way I'm intending "soul" to be used is perhaps more how you define "spirit" in the above, and when in a body (spiritual body or physical body), the soul simply becomes a "living soul" being able to interact with the world around it.

This is what I was referring to. Words have ranges of meaning. You see the qualification you have to make? You have to differentiate between a "living soul" and just a "soul." That, it seems to me, is going to open a really ugly can of worms, especially given what "living" can mean!

I would disagree that "spirit" is an immortal part of the self, rather I understand the soul to be immortal. And if by immaterial you mean non-physical, then I would agree the spirit is immaterial (as is the soul), but I believe the spirit has its own bodily substance that is spirit (unlike the soul which has no "bodily" substance). Although no doubt a large part of our disagreement perhaps lies with semantics, we do appear to have very different understandings of what is actually involved.

I agree that the spirit is/has its own "substance." The Bible does teach that we have some sort of spirit bodies, and that these are different from our resurrected bodies (one major reason I reject the concept of soul sleep). Of course, "substance" here is non-physical, as you noted. That should go without saying.

That said, there do seem to be some deep differences. I'm not sure how the soul could not have a "body" but the spirit can. I don't even know what, for you, a "soul" and "spirit" are. You are making a distinction, yes, but based on what?

Secondly, it seems that you are using "soul" in the way I'm using "spirit," I think. If that's the case, then using your terminology, I could say that the soul is the immortal part of the human. I can say that, even in my own system, and be correct, but for me it isn't specific given my ideas. So, the point is that you seem to have an extra distinction than I do. I don't see how you can recognize a mortal part of the human existence that is non-physical, but yet distinct from an immortal non-physical part of the human existence.

Question: How do you think Adam and Eve died at the time they sinned—would you say their soul died, or was it their spirit, or? I believe this shows a major distinction between the two. How it is we can experience God if we don't have a body with the capacity that allows us to experience God? This is what the spirit is, and Scripture tells us that we become born of the spirit when we come to Christ.

Well, again, remember that I don't make the distinction between the soul and spirit that you do. In your language, I'd say the soul died. In mine, I'd say the spirit died. By "died" I mean "in broken relationship to God." I discussed this concept thoroughly in this thread with ttoews.

If I don't make a distinction then I have to answer your second question. In short, I don't think that our "dead" bodies do not have "the capacity that allows us to experience God." Certainly, we can't be in proper fellowship with God, but that is what regeneration and redemption are all about. Just like Jesus raised Laz. from the dead, we are raised from the dead with Him and by Him. Do we argue that he could not experience Jesus because of his death? Of course not. So, you'll have to clarify your position a bit more for me there.

The Christian theological implications of saying the spirit is equivilant to the immaterial soul runs very deep and I've discovered touches on much theology surrounding the after-life, salvation, the fall, sin, and many other doctrines. I also just want to say that my beliefs I detail specifically on this area are not something I'm just speaking out on without much reading, thought, and development, but they are something I have read into and refined over time (though I still admit I could be be easily wrong on many things ).

I certainly agree that it runs deep. You'll have to show me, though, where any conflicts arise, as I've not seen any. I've not read broadly on the subject, so, of course, I could be wrong. But, at this stage in my studies, I see no reason to make a distinction. Against this, it seems to me that the Bible teaches that man is two part, not three part. *shrug*

[Kurieuo]

Hi Jac,

I'm going to try and make short and quick posts, which instead of responding to everything, targets where I believe the root of our difference lies. This is evidently understanding the "soul", "body" and/or "spirit" and their relationship to each other so I'll focus on these.

Yet, I have observed that many meanings can be attached to these words, "spirit" and "soul", and you will see many of these meanings given by the dictionary. The way I'm intending "soul" to be used is perhaps more how you define "spirit" in the above, and when in a body (spiritual body or physical body), the soul simply becomes a "living soul" being able to interact with the world around it.

This is what I was referring to. Words have ranges of meaning. You see the qualification you have to make? You have to differentiate between a "living soul" and just a "soul." That, it seems to me, is going to open a really ugly can of worms, especially given what "living" can mean!

I believe the soul remains the same always—it never changes. What does change is whether or not the soul possesses a body wherein its capacities can function. Soul and body combined together both produce a "living soul," that is a soul that can interact with the world. Genesis 2:7 supports this: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Here we see "body" + "breath of life" (i.e., soul [or spirit as you'd define it]) = "living soul."

I'm also not sure whether you've read posts within the thread entitled "Hell", but I detail a fair bit more there also.

Question: How do you think Adam and Eve died at the time they sinned—would you say their soul died, or was it their spirit, or? I believe this shows a major distinction between the two. How it is we can experience God if we don't have a body with the capacity that allows us to experience God? This is what the spirit is, and Scripture tells us that we become born of the spirit when we come to Christ.

Well, again, remember that I don't make the distinction between the soul and spirit that you do. In your language, I'd say the soul died. In mine, I'd say the spirit died. By "died" I mean "in broken relationship to God." I discussed this concept thoroughly in this thread with ttoews.

I read portions of your exchange, and you say the relationship between the Son and Father was severed, and this is what you call "spiritual death." Now let's turn to Adam and Eve. God said to them: "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when [or, "in the day" (KJV)] you eat of it you will surely die." (Gen 2:17) Now allow me compare between loosing the capacity to experience God, and loosing the capacity to physically see. If I become physically blind, then "I" don't physically die—I simply loose the capacity to see. In the same way, if one looses the capacity to see God, they don't spiritually die—they simply loose the capacity to see God. Thus, your idea of spiritual death is not strong enough to represent Adam and Eve dying.

This prompts a further question, which is how did Adam and Eve die? We have to assume that they died spiritually (since they physically lived on), and such lead to their capacity to experience God being severed. Not only did their spiritual capacity to see God become "broken", but their spirit really did die. Now if their spirit died, thus destroying their capacity to see God, how is it they could continue control and experience things through their body? This is only possible if they still retained their soul. What died upon their sinning was their spiritual body, yet their physical body lived on. Their soul remained the same throughout, and it was because of their spiritual body dying that their soul could no longer experience God spiritually.

To provide a further analogy to help you stop confusing your definitions on the soul and spirit with mine; consider the movie Ghost (I'm assuming we've all seen that movie ). Now when Patrick Swayze gets killed, I'm sure we both agree that his physical body ceased to exist. What pops out of his physical body is Swayze's ghost—his etheral body. As the movie progresses he learns that he can make contact with physical objects using his etheral hand if he concentrates. However, what is it that does the concentrating, and what is it that controls his etheral body to make contact with physical objects? You would say it is his spirit, but I would call his etheral body his spirit, and say his soul, which is who he is, does the controlling.

I hope this helps you to understand what I mean by spirit and soul. I'd be interested to hear any remarks, critical or otherwise.

Kurieuo.