| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Levy Oates" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2003 01:21:06 AM |
| Object: |
Can a person have two souls? |
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating piece
of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians. Neither embryo has died. Yet there is only one conscious, living
human being. There is only one person making choices, sometimes presumably
between good and evil choices. How can one consciousness dictate the fate of two
souls?
I don't see how it is possible to make an authoritative pronouncement on this
from a Christian point of view, but I would be interested to see the discussion
that ensues.
Thinking about subjects like this can have a profound impact on all of us. It
could affect the Christian views of embryos, at what point embryos should be
called human beings and the point at which they should be afforded the
protection of the law. Any change in Christian thinking would have implications
for public policy on stem cell research, fertility treatment, abortion etc.
I'm cross posting this to:
alt.atheism, (home)
alt.religion.christian, and
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
I'll probably only look out for replies in the alt.atheism group though. So if
the Christians want to carry out a conversation behind my back - then you know
what to do :)
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
06 Dec 2003 11:50:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:21:06 +0000, Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> >wrote:
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating piece
of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians. Neither embryo has died. Yet there is only one conscious, living
human being. There is only one person making choices, sometimes presumably
between good and evil choices. How can one consciousness dictate the fate of two
souls?
I don't see how it is possible to make an authoritative pronouncement on this
from a Christian point of view, but I would be interested to see the discussion
that ensues.
Thinking about subjects like this can have a profound impact on all of us. It
could affect the Christian views of embryos, at what point embryos should be
called human beings and the point at which they should be afforded the
protection of the law. Any change in Christian thinking would have implications
for public policy on stem cell research, fertility treatment, abortion etc.
I'm cross posting this to:
alt.atheism, (home)
alt.religion.christian, and
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
I'll probably only look out for replies in the alt.atheism group though. So if
the Christians want to carry out a conversation behind my back - then you know
what to do :)
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Hello,
Sorry to spoil all that deductive reasoning above, but the Bible does
not teach that humans have some 'immortal soul' attached to them
somewhere. Rather, the Bible shows that a "soul" is a person, and
since a person can die, so can a "soul". Here is the Scriptural proof:
The first use of the word "soul" (Hebrew-nephesh) used toward a human
(animals are also called souls- see ), was at Ge 2:7,
"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."
(KJV)
Notice that when the man started to breath that he wasn't 'given' a
soul, but he BECAME a soul. Thus in this verse, the "soul" is the man
himself.
So souls are not immortal, but can die. Eze 18:4,
"Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the
soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (KJV)
I hope this has helped to somewhat clear up what the BIBLE says about
a "soul". What those professing to be 'Christian' in the churches wish
to teach about a soul is up to them. What the Bible teaches about it
is what is the final authority on true Christian doctrine. (Joh 17:17)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
06 Dec 2003 06:17:51 PM |
|
|
James <voja@surfbest.net> wrote in message news:<8m54tv4u1j5ogt8qjc66jdu5vriugj4ajq@4ax.com>...
The first use of the word "soul" (Hebrew-nephesh) used toward a human
(animals are also called souls- see ), was at Ge 2:7,
You came late to the discussion and should have read the various
comments.
Animals have souls also.
"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."
(KJV)
KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
What did God breath into his nostrils? Nothing? God does not breath
air or else He would die. Did you know that?
Read a better translation of the Bible and read clearly what it says
about humans returning to the dust of the earth and the SOUL back to
its maker.
If the soul was nothing, nothing needs to return.
You must be a loony Adventist or some of the fringe loony Protestants.
Shan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
07 Dec 2003 11:01:06 PM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, (Shan) posted in
alt.atheism:
KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
Not to you or not to anyone?
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 01:14:16 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<cb18tvgfa0ll9rufttj578gqtkpp91nvrc@Pern.rk>...
On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, (Shan) posted in
alt.atheism:
KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
Not to you or not to anyone?
The KJV is a 'pretty' translation, but like the Vulgate before it, it
is riddled with errors. Furthermore, the antiquated language obscures
meaning rather than aiding understanding. Anyone with any genuine
interest in the text would be well-advised to find a more acceptable
modern translation (and not that NIV, which is purposely edited to
serve certain religious agendas).
The problem with Bibles is that everyone has a bias and in many cases
the meaning is not clear. (Even atheist scholars could get into fights
over what certain sentences mean.) My New American (Catholic) Bible is
pretty good and easy to read, but I know of plenty of places where
they translated words in a way that was convenient to Catholic
theologians. (Plus all the notes explaining things (away) get pretty
annoying after a while.)
Gotta laugh at Southern Baptists whose sense of history is so warped
that they think the KJV epistles were written in Paul's own hand,
though . . .
-Hypatia
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 06:46:05 PM |
|
|
(Hypatia Kosh) wrote in message news:<fb1e5579.0312122314.4c8a7b2b@posting.google.com>...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<cb18tvgfa0ll9rufttj578gqtkpp91nvrc@Pern.rk>...
On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, (Shan) posted in
alt.atheism:
KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
Not to you or not to anyone?
The KJV is a 'pretty' translation, but like the Vulgate before it, it
is riddled with errors. Furthermore, the antiquated language obscures
meaning rather than aiding understanding. Anyone with any genuine
interest in the text would be well-advised to find a more acceptable
modern translation (and not that NIV, which is purposely edited to
serve certain religious agendas).
The problem with Bibles is that everyone has a bias and in many cases
the meaning is not clear. (Even atheist scholars could get into fights
over what certain sentences mean.) My New American (Catholic) Bible is
pretty good and easy to read, but I know of plenty of places where
they translated words in a way that was convenient to Catholic
theologians. (Plus all the notes explaining things (away) get pretty
annoying after a while.)
Gotta laugh at Southern Baptists whose sense of history is so warped
that they think the KJV epistles were written in Paul's own hand,
though . . .
It is an elementary lesson for anyone who is involved in translation
that the best translator is one who is not involved in the subject
material.
In the case of Biblical translator, the best ones would be atheists
who have no agenda but linguistics.
shan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 10:42:29 PM |
|
|
On 12 Dec 2003 23:14:16 -0800, (Hypatia Kosh) posted
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<cb18tvgfa0ll9rufttj578gqtkpp91nvrc@Pern.rk>...
On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, (Shan) posted in
alt.atheism:
KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
Not to you or not to anyone?
The KJV is a 'pretty' translation, but like the Vulgate before it, it
is riddled with errors.
When compared to previous bibles. Since we don;t have a single
"original", we don't know whether ANY translation is error-free.
Gotta laugh at Southern Baptists whose sense of history is so warped
that they think the KJV epistles were written in Paul's own hand,
though . . .
If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
14 Dec 2003 08:01:40 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<feqntvgnmgb9s3fksdr0va0lv99au4gcho@Pern.rk>...
On 12 Dec 2003 23:14:16 -0800, (Hypatia Kosh) posted
in alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<cb18tvgfa0ll9rufttj578gqtkpp91nvrc@Pern.rk>...
On 6 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0800, (Shan) posted in
alt.atheism:
KJV is not an acceptable translation to begin with.
Not to you or not to anyone?
The KJV is a 'pretty' translation, but like the Vulgate before it, it
is riddled with errors.
When compared to previous bibles. Since we don;t have a single
"original", we don't know whether ANY translation is error-free.
Gotta laugh at Southern Baptists whose sense of history is so warped
that they think the KJV epistles were written in Paul's own hand,
though . . .
If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them.
I think Jesus uses the NIV or NASB. His English is terrible and
speaks with a heavy Jewish accent. The free copy we sent him was
returned.
Shan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
06 Dec 2003 09:06:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:50:32 -0500, James <voja@surfbest.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
I hope this has helped to somewhat clear up what the BIBLE says about
a "soul". What those professing to be 'Christian' in the churches wish
to teach about a soul is up to them. What the Bible teaches about it
is what is the final authority on true Christian doctrine.
The OT is the final authority on what is Jewish doctrine. Christian
doctrine, OTOH, holds that the soul is immortal, and that everyone
gets one, and only one, soul, not that everyone *is* a soul.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 01:22:14 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<2665tv077821sc0er4ttbnghasle1dg52k@Pern.rk>...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:50:32 -0500, James <voja@surfbest.net> posted
in alt.atheism:
I hope this has helped to somewhat clear up what the BIBLE says about
a "soul". What those professing to be 'Christian' in the churches wish
to teach about a soul is up to them. What the Bible teaches about it
is what is the final authority on true Christian doctrine.
The OT is the final authority on what is Jewish doctrine.
*****. Judaism has a living tradition which continues to this day.
Even Jews who follow Levitical laws have continually adapted to
changes in technology over the centuries. (Notably, the introduction
of electricity into the home.)
"Jews just follow the OT" is the typical ***** of ignorant and
mis-informed Christians, most of whom have never heard of the names
Maimonides, Hillel or Rashi. Seen any Jews sacrifice pigeons to
expiate sins lately? Oh, you haven't? Funny, that ***** is in the
Bible. Huh. Figure that one out, fundies, but don't take all day. You
might get an aneurysm from all that tough thinking.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "€ R.L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
20 Nov 2003 08:19:40 AM |
|
|
In article <49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
...
** I have two, A right one and a left one, both are size 9E.
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "anne marie hovgaard" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
20 Nov 2003 12:16:42 PM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
And if one half is male, the other female (I recently saw an
interesting TV documentary about such a child!) - would s/he be
allowed to become a priest?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shan" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
20 Nov 2003 06:02:48 PM |
|
|
(anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
And if one half is male, the other female (I recently saw an
interesting TV documentary about such a child!) - would s/he be
allowed to become a priest?
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
The RCC gender issue that forbids women from the priesthood is absurd.
This is not the place to discuss it but male and female are purely
biological states of being for the purpose of reproduction. They are
not spiritual in any way. Priests are not supposed to be men in the
biological sense of reproduction therefore they just as well be
asexual.
Shan
.
|
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
11 Dec 2003 10:13:05 AM |
|
|
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0311201602.2432700c@posting.google.com...
amhovgaard@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
I respect your point of view, and, on the surface, I myself have no
objections to women priests since we are all in unity with
the mystical body of Christ, being the reason why someone is capable of
being a priest in the first place.
However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history of the
divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
to receive such a duty.Jesus chose twelve apostles, also 70 disciples, who
are all identified by Hyppolitus, no women are to be found. Since the
seventy were responsible for establishing churches, they are also to be
viewed as bishops, and priests. My question is this: Would this make God a
"women hater", or could there indeed be a difference between "male and
female".
My opinion is this: Yes there is a difference between the two(male
female), since life was created in such a way.The physical
being the image of the spiritual. It is to my opinion that the male is that
which is given, which is the reason why God is seen as "male" and female is
that which receives, being is the reason why the Church ( congregation of
God) is viewed in terms of "female".When the Church is viewed as the "Body
of Christ", it would be through the priesthood, the giving of the
Sacraments. Between the two, we have a covenant, a bond which is what
christianity is all about.
On the other hand, I believe that man and women have "both" of such
elements withing them, some in a greater proportion of one than the other,
with the exceptions of Jesus(true man) and Mary)(true woman).The women, in
ordinary circumstances, have more of the female element than male, and vice
versa. In abnormal circumstances, we would have the opposite. Therefore,
what happens, when we have a person who is psychologically more female, but
physically is male? In my opinion, it is to be viewed as a deviancy from
what is considered to be naturally normal;we need to ask the question: did
God intended humanity to have homosexuals as well as heterosexuals? My
"personal" opinion is no. Does this mean that a homosexual person is
deviant? No, since the person is the soul; but one can become deviant by
"acting" in such a way. Therefore, yes, I believe that homosexuality is a
deviant act, but so is every every sexual acts performed
which is not for the purpose of what the act was naturally intended for,
that is procreation.Does this mean that I believe most, if not everyone
perform sexual deviant acts? Yes! We are deviant in nature, not only in what
is sexual but in everything which
enable us to be perfectly happy, which is why we are all in need of a
Savior. Therefore, homosexuals are to be respected, not because
homosexuality is a normal behavior, but because "nobody" is to be identified
as being "normal"...we are all sinners.
The RCC gender issue that forbids women from the priesthood is absurd.
This is not the place to discuss it but male and female are purely
biological states of being for the purpose of reproduction. They are
not spiritual in any way. Priests are not supposed to be men in the
biological sense of reproduction therefore they just as well be
asexual.
Shan
Therefore, in my opinion, man is an "image" of what is to be called "male",
and the woman is an "image" of what is to be called "female". In respect to
such images, the male only can become a priest.
Nevertheless, I would like to add, that certainly, the Church could
receive other directions from the Holy Spirit, which would enable the woman
to become a priest, such as was the case in the council of Jerusalem
concerning the gentiles.
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 01:06:20 AM |
|
|
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vth5u09sr4i15b@corp.supernews.com>...
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0311201602.2432700c@posting.google.com...
amhovgaard@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
I respect your point of view, and, on the surface, I myself have no
objections to women priests since we are all in unity with
the mystical body of Christ, being the reason why someone is capable of
being a priest in the first place.
However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history of the
divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
to receive such a duty.Jesus chose twelve apostles, also 70 disciples, who
are all identified by Hyppolitus, no women are to be found. Since the
seventy were responsible for establishing churches, they are also to be
viewed as bishops, and priests. My question is this: Would this make God a
"women hater", or could there indeed be a difference between "male and
female".
So my question to you is: what about female deacons in Paul's time?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm
Hmmm, seems like women were only banned from church office in the 4th
or 5th century. That's pretty fucking late!
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 09:27:26 AM |
|
|
"Hypatia Kosh" <berli@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:fb1e5579.0312122306.fd2941e@posting.google.com...
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:<vth5u09sr4i15b@corp.supernews.com>...
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0311201602.2432700c@posting.google.com...
amhovgaard@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
I respect your point of view, and, on the surface, I myself have no
objections to women priests since we are all in unity with
the mystical body of Christ, being the reason why someone is capable of
being a priest in the first place.
However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history of the
divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
to receive such a duty.Jesus chose twelve apostles, also 70 disciples,
who
are all identified by Hyppolitus, no women are to be found. Since the
seventy were responsible for establishing churches, they are also to be
viewed as bishops, and priests. My question is this: Would this make God
a
"women hater", or could there indeed be a difference between "male and
female".
So my question to you is: what about female deacons in Paul's time?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm
Hmmm, seems like women were only banned from church office in the 4th
or 5th century. That's pretty fucking late!
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 09:27:47 AM |
|
|
"Hypatia Kosh" <berli@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:fb1e5579.0312122306.fd2941e@posting.google.com...
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:<vth5u09sr4i15b@corp.supernews.com>...
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0311201602.2432700c@posting.google.com...
amhovgaard@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
I respect your point of view, and, on the surface, I myself have no
objections to women priests since we are all in unity with
the mystical body of Christ, being the reason why someone is capable of
being a priest in the first place.
However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history of the
divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
to receive such a duty.Jesus chose twelve apostles, also 70 disciples,
who
are all identified by Hyppolitus, no women are to be found. Since the
seventy were responsible for establishing churches, they are also to be
viewed as bishops, and priests. My question is this: Would this make God
a
"women hater", or could there indeed be a difference between "male and
female".
So my question to you is: what about female deacons in Paul's time?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm
Hmmm, seems like women were only banned from church office in the 4th
or 5th century. That's pretty fucking late!
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 09:40:46 AM |
|
|
"Hypatia Kosh" <berli@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:fb1e5579.0312122306.fd2941e@posting.google.com...
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:<vth5u09sr4i15b@corp.supernews.com>...
"Shan" <shankarees@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.0311201602.2432700c@posting.google.com...
amhovgaard@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message
news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
So my question to you is: what about female deacons in Paul's time?
What were the duties of the deacon/ness?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg5.htm
Hmmm, seems like women were only banned from church office in the 4th
or 5th century. That's pretty fucking late!
-Hypatia Kosh
But here,Hypatia, you're speaking non-cahtolic literature, used by the
gnostics. We could speak of other religions having not only deaconess, but
priestess, and I respect this. But where, in catholic litterarture would we
find women priests?
If you believe Jesus to be divine (I don't know what you believe), why do
you think he did not choose any woman himself to take part in the
establishment of his church? Why couldn't he have chosen 6 male apostles and
6 women? Again, I personly don't object to women priests, but I do find it
odd that nowhere in the old testament and the history of the catholic church
do we find women priests, that's all I'm saying.
Andre
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
12 Dec 2003 11:06:32 PM |
|
|
mich <mich@efni.com> wrote:
However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history
of the divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
to receive such a duty.
Let's clarify what that means: We find no accounts of such women in the
canon or in the official history of the church -- but the canon and the
history were both approved by the patriarchal factions which won the
battle to decide what Christianity should profess.
We should not be surprised that the winners suppressed competing
ideologies and the texts and traditions associated which those
"heresies." But we would be foolish indeed to treat the results of that
culling as a true and complete history of early Christian belief.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 09:26:47 AM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a4468622d4fbe3098a24b@netnews.comcast.net...
mich <mich@efni.com> wrote:
However, I also look to the fact that nowhere in the history
of the divinely ordained priesthood, was there a women chosen
to receive such a duty.
Let's clarify what that means: We find no accounts of such women in the
canon or in the official history of the church -- but the canon and the
history were both approved by the patriarchal factions which won the
battle to decide what Christianity should profess.
We should not be surprised that the winners suppressed competing
ideologies and the texts and traditions associated which those
"heresies." But we would be foolish indeed to treat the results of that
culling as a true and complete history of early Christian belief.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Maybe, Brian, but I was speaking of Jesus choosing the seventy disciples
and his twelve apostles, also the Levitical law, given by God, did not
permit a womean to become a priest. Why do you suppose no women were chosen
in these instances?
Andre
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 01:02:36 AM |
|
|
(Shan) wrote in message news:<71bd538c.0311201602.2432700c@posting.google.com>...
amhovgaard@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
And if one half is male, the other female (I recently saw an
interesting TV documentary about such a child!) - would s/he be
allowed to become a priest?
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
The RCC gender issue that forbids women from the priesthood is absurd.
This is not the place to discuss it but male and female are purely
biological states of being for the purpose of reproduction. They are
not spiritual in any way. Priests are not supposed to be men in the
biological sense of reproduction therefore they just as well be
asexual.
The Roman Catholic priesthood has its roots in the Mithraic mystery
cult, favored by Roman soldiers, which was a men's religion. Catholic
rite is also influenced by Judaism, in which only men could read the
Torah at synagogue, and only men could be priests. (Of course, there
are no Jewish priests today, because there is no temple--hehe. I guess
YHWH changed his mind about some things.)
The one thing the Roman Catholic hierarchy fears more than anything
else (certainly more than God) is change. I no longer believe that we
will see ordination of women in the RCC in my lifetime. Even if the
priest shortage becomes many times more severe than it is now, their
answer will be to allow priests to marry (as they can in the Eastern
rite) and liberalize the rules for deacons and lay ministers to
celebrate the Mass.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
25 Nov 2003 07:22:54 PM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2003 16:02:48 -0800, (Shan), Message ID:
<71bd538c.0311201602.2432700c@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
amhovgaard@yahoo.no (anne marie hovgaard) wrote in message news:<705782b9.0311201016.4124570c@posting.google.com>...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
And if one half is male, the other female (I recently saw an
interesting TV documentary about such a child!) - would s/he be
allowed to become a priest?
This is a very good point. Should hermaphrodites be permitted to
become priests in the RCC? I'd say yes and, of course, I would say
yes to permitting women to become priests or priestesses.
The RCC gender issue that forbids women from the priesthood is absurd.
This is not the place to discuss it but male and female are purely
biological states of being for the purpose of reproduction. They are
not spiritual in any way. Priests are not supposed to be men in the
biological sense of reproduction therefore they just as well be
asexual.
I agree, totally. Does that surprise you?
Shan
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
20 Nov 2003 01:09:04 PM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2003 10:16:42 -0800, (anne marie hovgaard) wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
And if one half is male, the other female (I recently saw an
interesting TV documentary about such a child!) - would s/he be
allowed to become a priest?
Ooooo! Good point!
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
12 Dec 2003 11:40:05 PM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
Possibility of having two souls? Sure, you can have two invisible pink
unicorns, right? Or two imaginary friends. Why not two souls?
Possibility of having no brain? Now, science tells us those flatscans
among us actually do have brains, to control their autonomic nervous
functions and make their preachin' lips yabber, but I must say much of
what passes for "debate" on christian newsgroups strikes me as rather
acephalic. So I could go either way on this.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
20 Nov 2003 04:58:49 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
Last week's New Scientist reported on several people who's body contains two
separate sets of DNA. What happened was that two fertilised eggs began to form
embryos in their mother's womb. Normally either one embryo would die, or twins
would result. However in the case of the people in question the two embryos
fused at an early stage and went on to form a single individual.
You're talking about chimeras. Finding a human chimera really is
quite rare.
Now in Christian doctrine (or at least, in Catholic doctrine) the soul is
created at the point of conception. As two fertilised eggs were present then
that means two souls - right? So which soul now inhabits the body of the grown
individual?
For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating piece
of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians.
This is by far not the only dilemma for theistic religionists. The mere
fact that they can't even provide any shred of evidence for the existence
of their god(s) already is a very big one. I am sure they will find some
sort of cheap cop out for this one, because that is what they usually do,
with or without a lot of pseudo-philosphical broohaha.
RS
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
11 Dec 2003 11:11:24 AM |
|
|
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:2767b33a.0311200258.311aa75b@posting.google.com...
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<49porvk00sbh8uicnu9vhcam591t4gmmi4@4ax.com>...
For an atheist, such as myself, this is merely a curious and fascinating
piece
of science, but it seems to me that it creates a dilemma of sorts for
Christians.
A soul is very simply the attribute of a living being. A multi personality
does not make a person having more than one soul.
Take the DNA for example; it is made up of genetic information stemming from
a great vast number of other life form influences, but, imbedded in only one
living being, distinct from all other influences.
This is by far not the only dilemma for theistic religionists. The mere
fact that they can't even provide any shred of evidence for the existence
of their god(s) already is a very big one. I am sure they will find some
sort of cheap cop out for this one, because that is what they usually do,
with or without a lot of pseudo-philosphical broohaha.
RS
If one cannot conceptualize something to be in existance, such as a
universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
"cannot" exist? While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
only that which can be proven,
what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
proven otherwise?
With such a position, one needs not to accept the existance of God, but
does not view it to be an impossibility unless proven otherwise.
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 12:00:42 AM |
|
|
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message news:<vth9bbb3oooq70@corp.supernews.com>...
If one cannot conceptualize something to be in existance, such as a
universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
"cannot" exist?
What kind of answer is that? I don't think linear algebra has anything
to do with the question posed. This smacks of the Church's ultimate
copout for hard questions--to wave their priestly hands and say
"mysterium."
That's cleric-ese for "our theology has just run into a logical
inconsistency."
The crucial (hehe) fact of the matter, however, is that the
naturalist, the monist, has no trouble at all understanding this (two
embryo) scenario. Only the dualist gets tangled up in knots.
While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
only that which can be proven,
what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
proven otherwise?
With such a position, one needs not to accept the existance of God, but
does not view it to be an impossibility unless proven otherwise.
So what? If this "God" does not affect your life in any way, why waste
time worrying about it? Our universe could be a micro sub-universe
pinched out of a greater universe, but so what? We'll never know. Our
whole lives could be some sort of Plato's cave shadow of the true
reality, but since we can't detect this noumenal plane, who cares?
Even thinking about it is a waste of time.
Put your effort into what you can observe and interact with. Stop
wasting mental and physical energy on the rest.
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
11 Dec 2003 01:59:55 PM |
|
|
Take the DNA for example; it is made up of genetic information stemming from
a great vast number of other life form influences, but, imbedded in only one
living being, distinct from all other influences.
Funny. I have two friends of mine who have identical DNA. They were "created"
by only one conception. They are identical twins.
My questions to the theists here are do they have two souls or do they share
one? Are they two people or one? If they are two people when was the second one
created? If there are two souls, how did they get there? If we kill one are we
guilty of murder since the unique genetic pattern has not been destroyed?
To the people who believe that personhood begins at conception then the answer
is obvious. They are not two people...they are one person. There is only one
soul. There is only one unique genetic pattern. One can freely be killed (if
you can even call it that) without consequence because the body which hosts the
soul has not been killed.
To the people who believe that personhood begins at birth the answer is also
obvious. They are two distinct people.
The existence of identical twins (and triplets, etc) is one of the many reasons
that the argument that personhood begins at conception is ludicrous.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
13 Dec 2003 12:04:32 AM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20031211145955.01786.00000595@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Take the DNA for example; it is made up of genetic information stemming from
a great vast number of other life form influences, but, imbedded in only one
living being, distinct from all other influences.
Funny. I have two friends of mine who have identical DNA. They were "created"
by only one conception. They are identical twins.
My questions to the theists here are do they have two souls or do they share
one? Are they two people or one? If they are two people when was the second one
created? If there are two souls, how did they get there? If we kill one are we
guilty of murder since the unique genetic pattern has not been destroyed?
To the people who believe that personhood begins at conception then the answer
is obvious. They are not two people...they are one person. There is only one
soul. There is only one unique genetic pattern. One can freely be killed (if
you can even call it that) without consequence because the body which hosts the
soul has not been killed.
To the people who believe that personhood begins at birth the answer is also
obvious. They are two distinct people.
The existence of identical twins (and triplets, etc) is one of the many reasons
that the argument that personhood begins at conception is ludicrous.
And what about clones? While some of the fears with clones (such as
the extremely wealthy growing clones as organ banks) are within the
realm of (sick) possibility, it seems like most of it stems from a
primitive idea that creating a clone of a person will steal that
person's soul.
Westerners laugh at Africans who think that cameras steal their souls,
but then they turn around and ban clone research. Who's stuck
knee-deep in magical thinking now?
-Hypatia Kosh
--
"Counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor . . ?
Death's too good for them." -- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
11 Dec 2003 10:29:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
A soul is very simply the attribute of a living being.
So slime mold colonies have souls. Now the question is this: Does
each cell have a separate soul? Does the entire colony have one soul?
How does it work?
If one cannot conceptualize something to be in existance, such as a
universe having more than three dimentions, does this mean that such a thing
"cannot" exist? While it is true that one can take the stand in believing
only that which can be proven,
what is wrong in taking the position that "anything" can be possible unless
proven otherwise?
Do you put out milk every night so as not to anger the "little
people"? Or do you claim that they don't really exist?
Do you follow all the Levitical Laws, just in case they're still in
effect?
Or are you saying that the only possibility we should accept unless
proven false is your brand of belief?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paavo P" |
|
| Title: Re: Can a person have two souls? |
12 Dec 2003 03:57:08 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:krgitvg914ompv0635df7bdsa9jf8os7a8@Pern.rk...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:11:24 -0500, "mich" <mich@efni.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Idea of having multiple souls or spirits or ghost is not so rare. Many
Finnish related peoples believed that there were several souls.
Like one walking behind you as a shadow and if it would get lost person
would get sick. And there were so called "bird soul" living in the head
between skull and head skin. This soul was the one which fly away when
person died (you can see reference to this in Carelian rock
paintings.There's injured looking person having figure of bird over him and
there's line drawn connecting head of the person and the bird).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
