Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c9uprvk341ude48jblmc5grc9sb07nst14@4ax.com>...

On 20 Nov 2003 06:08:51 -0800,

Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.

A *very* good point. This is such a common occurrence, surely the RCC must have
a well defined doctrine for this? I like yout idea of a "viable" soul, but
wouldn't this also call into question the RCC's views on abortion if it was
widely adopted?

I honestly have no idea whether RCC clerics meddled in that business
too.

In both the cases mentioned above, I am of the opinion that since
there were no viable bodies to contain two "viable" souls, there is
only one soul.

A reasonable answer - but is it one that would be acceptable to most other
Catholics?

I am sure many liberal Catholics can be persuaded. Getting
conservatives to accept anything has to be first approved by Mr.
RATzinger (Cardinal of what used to be the Inquisition).

You know it would be rather nice if some of the sensible Christians such as
yourself were to pop over from time to time to alt.atheism for a serious
discussion, but since you'd probably get howled down very quickly (and I'll
probably get howled down for even suggesting such a thing) I can understand why
not.

I believe that many atheists are fed up with too many Christians who
do not know how to reason nor are they willing to accept anything
which either is literally spelled out (for fundamentalists) or has
been decreed (for non-partyline-crossing Catholics).

I don't know if I would want to face another front of antagonistic
folks. Many fundamentalists and conservative Catholics flame me by
swaying the ax of heresy and excommunication in my face. Being flamed
by atheists too may not be conducive my well being.

If interested in carrying on a discussion, I would be glad to do it
while ignoring "terrorist" posts or simply in another forum where
people don't care.

As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
would be interested in your thoughts.

Nope - I never laugh when people make the effort to make coherent, reasonable
posts. If the fundies have a go at posting on this thread though then I may well
have a belly laugh at them.

I can assure you that fundies get the bitter end of my tongue, as
well. I believe any group of reasonable people who are sincere or
interested in exchanging opinions or as in an intellectual excerzie
can do that without ulterior motives.

I don't really have any thoughts on the subject myself - since I don't believe
in souls in the first place :)

I knew that I was addressing a group of people who think of souls as I
would of sugar-plum fairies. In a way, it makes the discussion weird,
to say the least.

Shan

Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c9uprvk341ude48jblmc5grc9sb07nst14@4ax.com>...

On 20 Nov 2003 06:08:51 -0800,

Now, what happens when the egg splits but instead of forming one fetus
it forms identical twins? Does the soul split also? Yes? No? may?
For the soul, in my view, to become a "viable" (if I could use the
expression) soul, the body needs to be viable also. Biblically, the
fictional story of creating man says that "Adam became a living soul."
In other words, a human being does not become a living soul unless he
has a viable body, in the Biblical sense.

A *very* good point. This is such a common occurrence, surely the RCC must have
a well defined doctrine for this? I like yout idea of a "viable" soul, but
wouldn't this also call into question the RCC's views on abortion if it was
widely adopted?

I honestly have no idea whether RCC clerics meddled in that business
too.

In both the cases mentioned above, I am of the opinion that since
there were no viable bodies to contain two "viable" souls, there is
only one soul.

A reasonable answer - but is it one that would be acceptable to most other
Catholics?

I am sure many liberal Catholics can be persuaded. Getting
conservatives to accept anything has to be first approved by Mr.
RATzinger (Cardinal of what used to be the Inquisition).

You know it would be rather nice if some of the sensible Christians such as
yourself were to pop over from time to time to alt.atheism for a serious
discussion, but since you'd probably get howled down very quickly (and I'll
probably get howled down for even suggesting such a thing) I can understand why
not.

I believe that many atheists are fed up with too many Christians who
do not know how to reason nor are they willing to accept anything
which either is literally spelled out (for fundamentalists) or has
been decreed (for non-partyline-crossing Catholics).

I don't know if I would want to face another front of antagonistic
folks. Many fundamentalists and conservative Catholics flame me by
swaying the ax of heresy and excommunication in my face. Being flamed
by atheists too may not be conducive my well being.

If interested in carrying on a discussion, I would be glad to do it
while ignoring "terrorist" posts or simply in another forum where
people don't care.

As an Atheist, I should hope you're not going to find this funny but
herewith I gave you my opinion as a non-conventional Catholic and I
would be interested in your thoughts.

Nope - I never laugh when people make the effort to make coherent, reasonable
posts. If the fundies have a go at posting on this thread though then I may well
have a belly laugh at them.

I can assure you that fundies get the bitter end of my tongue, as
well. I believe any group of reasonable people who are sincere or
interested in exchanging opinions or as in an intellectual excerzie
can do that without ulterior motives.

I don't really have any thoughts on the subject myself - since I don't believe
in souls in the first place :)

I knew that I was addressing a group of people who think of souls as I
would of sugar-plum fairies. In a way, it makes the discussion weird,
to say the least.

Shan

No one has ever come up with OBJECTIVE evidence of the existence of anything
like a "soul". There is no OBJECTIVE evidence of ANY life after death.

The debate over souls is no more meaningful than the discussion of how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In article <Xns94396DB465E02Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:

On 20 Nov 2003,

Although we thought
XX produced women and XY produced men, now we know that neither of
these are real identifiers of gender and not even genitals.

Uhhh... since when do we "know" this? Last I checked, current
genetics theory still has it that XX chromosomes produce women and XY
chromosomes produce men.

It's possible to be an XX male or an XY female. There is a critical
gene on the Y which determines whether the fetus becomes male. If this
gene is absent or damaged, the fetus becomes female even if the rest
of the Y is present. Occasionally, this gene will get copied onto an X
chromosome leading to an XX male.

Obviously, over the last few decades and even today, some doctors

insist on performing medical procedures to make child conform to what
the doctor thinks he or she must be. The end result is often a
disaster where the child grows up to be a woman in a man's body or a
man in a woman's body.

Children of ambiguous gender regardless of their chromosomes and/or
their unclear genitalia must be left alone to grow up and decide for
themselves what gender they feel comfortable in.

Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94396DB465E02Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...

On 20 Nov 2003,

Although we thought
XX produced women and XY produced men, now we know that neither of
these are real identifiers of gender and not even genitals.

Uhhh... since when do we "know" this? Last I checked, current genetics
theory still has it that XX chromosomes produce women and XY chromosomes
produce men.

Please check again. I was of the same opinion until I learnt
otherwise. Gender specialists confirm that even when all the
requirements for a specific gender are present, it is not enough

Obviously, over the last few decades and even today, some doctors
insist on performing medical procedures to make child conform to what
the doctor thinks he or she must be. The end result is often a
disaster where the child grows up to be a woman in a man's body or a
man in a woman's body.

Children of ambiguous gender regardless of their chromosomes and/or
their unclear genitalia must be left alone to grow up and decide for
themselves what gender they feel comfortable in.

Shan

Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94396DB465E02Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...

On 20 Nov 2003,

Although we thought
XX produced women and XY produced men, now we know that neither of
these are real identifiers of gender and not even genitals.

Uhhh... since when do we "know" this? Last I checked, current
genetics theory still has it that XX chromosomes produce women and XY
chromosomes produce men.

Please check again. I was of the same opinion until I learnt
otherwise. Gender specialists confirm that even when all the
requirements for a specific gender are present, it is not enough

Obviously, over the last few decades and even today, some doctors
insist on performing medical procedures to make child conform to what
the doctor thinks he or she must be. The end result is often a
disaster where the child grows up to be a woman in a man's body or a
man in a woman's body.

Children of ambiguous gender regardless of their chromosomes and/or
their unclear genitalia must be left alone to grow up and decide for
themselves what gender they feel comfortable in.

Shan