At 12:42 PM 4/10/2005, Roy Brown wrote:
>In message <[log in to unmask]>,
>Shawn Gordon <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>>Here is where there is no hope of seeing eye to eye or having
>>compromise.  I firmly believe in the existence of GOD, and of souls and
>>that each human, even you, have a soul and the soul will live on after our
>>physical death.
>
>Humans, but not other living creatures?

I don't have any information that would confirm or deny a soul outside of
humans, which actually brings up a very interesting question with regard to
cloning.  I'm against human cloning, however from a strictly science vs.
religion issue it would be fascinating to see if #1 it would result in an
aware human and #2, if it did, would there be anything fundamentally
different about them?  If it did not result in an aware human, then I would
say that would be a lot of proof for the existence of a soul at a minimum,
and further proof of a divine being.  I would not say the inverse would
prove the lack of a soul however, maybe GOD would decide to put one in, I
can't begin to understand the nature of an omnipotent being.


>>  I believe that the soul leaves the body on its termination, not upon
>>entering a "vegetative state".
>
>If a human could be alive (and I am sure we would agree that even
>someone in a PVS is still alive) without a soul, whatever would they be
>if they came out of that state?
>
>>I further believe, like some odd billions of others, that the soul
>>enters the baby at the time of conception.
>
>That sounds like the logical moment. Either that, or the moment of
>birth. (Though that would mean that abortion was the prevention of a
>human, not the killing of one). [1]
>
>These billions, though; can you tell me, Shawn if they believe that this
>soul-entering is a thing that just happens (and if so, how)? Or does it
>require Divine intervention to bring about in each case?

I'm not privvy to what goes on in Heaven I'm afraid.


>Or do some have the first of these beliefs, and other the second of
>them?
>
>[1] Somebody else mentioned that Catholics were against masturbation,
>because this was the (potential) prevention of human beings. Though I
>think Onan was given a pretty clear directive from God, and went against
>it, so I am not sure it should be a general rule.
>
>(Good name for a budgerigar though, if it eats messily).
>
>--
>Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
>Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
www.mindawn.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *