[QUOTE=Mystwalker;85181]... I only think that someone's believes should all be part of a holistic 'system', without severe contradictions. If there are some, one has to consider changes to (at least) some believes.

I think this is the typical way in mathematics and (nature) sciences, maybe in sciences in general.[/QUOTE]I agree with you.
The problem is that mfgoode does not want to discuss on a scientific basis. He does not want to review his believes and to check that they are coherent. He believes and that is enough for him. He probably needs this kind of help, afraid to be lost alone in this World.

A short story.
When I was a teen-ager, I remembered of a view I had: something like faces of people looking at me from sky and far. (Now this view is very vague.)
If I've been educated within religion, I would have believed gods were looking at me.
I used my brain, free of any pre-defined interpretation: my opinion was that I remembered of views I had when baby, at a time my brain was not able to build the mental representation of the picture (probably my parents) my very young eyes were looking at.

Use your brain, Mally, not your books !

Tony

Alone in this world!
 

[QUOTE=T.Rex;85187]I agree with you.
The problem is that mfgoode does not want to discuss on a scientific basis. He does not want to review his believes and to check that they are coherent. He believes and that is enough for him. He probably needs this kind of help, afraid to be lost alone in this World.

Use your brain, Mally, not your books !

Tony[/QUOTE]
:smile:
Hey hey ! Tony that is a 'Coup de Boule'. You get a red card!

Psalm 27: 1 The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is my strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid'

You see I dont need you or your Mentors in this forum to form my own opinions. I dont need your 'I agree with so and so' to name drop to make my point.

If you dont believe the Bible which is both scientific and spiritual in every word at least listen to the words of Sir Francis Bacon. Oh well you say you dont believe in history so Francis Bacon does not exist!

I confirm he is dead but his words live on and thats the point you cant seem to grasp. The Word lives on!

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." FB.

Here's another from him " Death is a friend of ours; and he that is not ready to entertain him, is not at home"

Your first 18 yrs. of life you were groping in the dark according to yourself before any one taught you religion. What a pity! you lived in a spiritual drought worse than the Sahara desert.! You are being led by the blind and where else can you land up but in a ditch ?

It is written ' Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God' The bread here is not the French cuisine but the scriptures.

You have tried in vain to divert this thread twice at least but you have miserably failed and just ask yourself "Why"? You claim to be an intelligent man so I leave it up to you to answer the question and get out of the straight jacket you have put yourself into.

Speaking of books again from sir FB " some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some books to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention."

Never the less
Please rest assured I am praying for you and your wife and I sincerely hope she will be cured. Her illness has made you very bitter, I can see it. Amen!.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=xilman;85177]I disagree.

I am still waiting for further comments from mfgoode on the nature of souls. In particular, I would like responses on the nature and number of souls (if any) pertaining to identical twins, conjoined twins (of varying degrees of separability) and of genetic mosaics. Each of those cases are carefully chosen probes of mfgoode's claim that "[i]... life starts in the male sperm. It is only fertilised in the ovum[/i]" (my italics).

Paul[/QUOTE]

I would like to hear a cogent definition of the word 'soul'.

For example, one can give a rigorous definition of the word 'liver'.

What is it exactly? How would a believer convince someone else of
its existence?

Webster's says:


(1) the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

--> This definition assume facts not in evidence. What is "immaterial essence"? What principle? What is an "actuating cause"???


2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b

--> Another "assumes facts not in evidence". What spriitual principal?

3 : a person's total self

What is "total" self as opposed to "partial" self?

5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force


This definition (5a) makes the most sense to me, but when it says
"the quality", I'd like to know which quality that is. Why is it a quality?
My emotions and sentiments arise from chemical reactions within my
brain and body. What makes these a 'quality'????

I'm not denying the existence of a soul. Such a denial would be the
height of stupidity since I don't really know what a soul is, other than a
word religious kooks like to throw around.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;85197]I would like to hear a cogent definition of the word 'soul'.[/QUOTE]I have already given one definition which you should perhaps consider[quote=xilman]Ah, souls.

A fascinating concept and something I've never really understood. There are just too many different descriptions and attempted definitions for the concept.

Some definitions appear to be relatively uncontroversial, such as the word "soul" in some sense captures the individuality of something, it's that quality which distinguishes it from other examples of the same thing. The Egyptian "ba" has this meaning. It's also the meaning implied in the title of a book "The Soul of a New Machine" which I enjoyed reading at about the same time I was employed on a similar enterprise.
[/quote]
Many things are hard to define precisely. The word "mathematics" is one, in my opinion. It is not at all easy to draw clear boundaries between "logic", "mathematical logic", "mathematics", "theoretical physics" and so forth.

Anyway, I am interested in learning more about mfgoode's interpretation of the concept "soul". Perhaps he can give a satisfactory definition.


Paul

[QUOTE=mfgoode;85195]Oh well you say you dont believe in history so Francis Bacon does not exist![/QUOTE]

You're mixing things here. Stating that "the history that is told by books, photographs etc. is not necessarily congruent to the history that really happened" does not mean that one doesn't believe in history.
Tony very well describes the process to determine the validity of historical sources. Using this process, it is very likely that a person called Francis Bacon existed. And that he did a lot of the things he is said to have done. Of course, there's also a lot of fiction and hear-say about him, but you can't guarantee that you can separate truths from fiction.

And even if Tony wouldn't believe in history:
This would have absolutely no effect on the (non)existance of Francis Bacon. Believe won't change it at all.

You don't provide a sound reasoning, I'm afraid.

Souls
 

[QUOTE=xilman;85198]I have already given one definition which you should perhaps consider
Many things are hard to define precisely. The word "mathematics" is one, in my opinion. It is not at all easy to draw clear boundaries between "logic", "mathematical logic", "mathematics", "theoretical physics" and so forth.

Anyway, I am interested in learning more about mfgoode's interpretation of the concept "soul". Perhaps he can give a satisfactory definition.


Paul[/QUOTE]
:smile:

Dear Paul,
[I would add the 'quantity' 'i' to your list.]

I must confess your post on identical twins left me in a quandary for a plausible answer.

I must thank you for helping me to know my Bible thoroughly.

This is the reason for my delay in replying.

To get to the point the Holy Ghost (Spirit) led me to the 2nd. Chapter of Genesis which gives the answer to your query.

Now please notice that God made man and woman differently.
Once the spermatozoon fertilises in the ovum and that combination penetrates another ovum in the case of identical twins, there is no necessity to produce another living soul by another spermatozoon. One is enough to produce two or more Beings identically.
But to get to the source of this explanation I take you to Genesis Ch.2 verse 7.

Creation of Adam: 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.
The key words to note are “nostrils”, ‘breathed’ and ‘breath of life’
This is all in one verse.

Creation of Eve: This description takes two verses but no breath (spermatozoon) is required.

Genesis 2 :21: And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept; and took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Verse 22: And the rib which the Lord had taken from man made He a woman and brought her to the man.

Verse 23 And Adam said “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of Man.

Gen: 24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.

25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed”

The key words/phrases to be noted are ‘deep sleep’ his ribs’, ‘closed up flesh instead’, ‘taken from man’,’ brought her’, ‘bone of my bones’, flesh of my flesh’, ‘taken out of man’, ‘one flesh’, ‘both naked’ and ‘ashamed’.

To clarify some points you have mentioned. The sperm have life but only when it is fertilised in a single ovum and there is a combination of the X and Y chromosomes and DNA, whatever, etc. does the individual get an identity we call a soul. In identical twins no matter how closely they are joined they are two separate individuals, provided I suppose, if they have the two separate organs each, that sustain life.

There are many sperm that go to waste as Nature does not take a chance on the procreation and conservation of human life. It makes it sure shot (no pun intended).

I hope this covers ordinary organ transplants from the donor to another recipient. It is taken from living tissue, one from the other. The Scottish doctor Ian Wilmut who cloned Dolly from the mammary glands should now take material from a rib which is the best IMHO material for transplants/clones.

I have added verse 25 to emphasise the word ‘ashamed’. Till they sinned they were only conscious of God and themselves in innocence. The Guilty Conscience and original sin were not in existence until they ate the forbidden 'fruit'
BTW: the word soul is first used in the verse I have quoted in the Bible.
May you be enlightened further.

Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode;85225]
I must confess your post on identical twins left me in a quandary for a plausible answer.

...

Once the spermatozoon fertilises in the ovum and that combination penetrates another ovum in the case of identical twins, there is no necessity to produce another living soul by another spermatozoon.
[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, that's not how identical twins arise. There is no "another ovum". They come from a single sperm which fertilizes a single ovum. After a few divisions the resulting bundle of cells splits into two separate bundles, each of which goes on to develop into an independent child.

Ok, now go on to explain the case of a genetic mosaic person. Remember that such an individual is formed from two ova fertilized by two sperm. The resulting pair of embryos merge at a very early developmental stage to form a single person. Neither embryo dominates the resulting fusion and both sets of cells continue to divide and form the tissue of the person which is eventually born.

Does that person have one soul or two?

If a genetic mosaic person has only one soul, what does that imply for your proposal that life begins with the sperm? Has one of the souls been discarded somewhere along the way between the two conceptions and the single birth?

Paul

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;85197]I would like to hear a cogent definition of the word 'soul'.[/QUOTE]

A living breathing person.
Although Mally will disagree with this. This is how it is used in the Bible predominately, both in the original languages and in the modern languages.
Sometimes the definition #3 is how it is used, everything of you, your inmost and utmost, from your soles to your crown.

[QUOTE=mfgoode;85225]Once the spermatozoon fertilises in the ovum and that combination penetrates another ovum in the case of identical twins, there is no necessity to produce another living soul by another spermatozoon. One is enough to produce two or more Beings identically.
............
The key words to note are “nostrils”, ‘breathed’ and ‘breath of life’
This is all in one verse.

Creation of Eve: This description takes two verses but no breath (spermatozoon) is required.
..........
I hope this covers ordinary organ transplants from the donor to another recipient. It is taken from living tissue, one from the other. The Scottish doctor Ian Wilmut who cloned Dolly from the mammary glands should now take material from a rib which is the best IMHO material for transplants/clones.[/QUOTE]
"Dude, you're smoking crack.":george:
As Xilman pointed out you are wrong about twins. It appears that you subscribe to the Leonardo DaVinci concept of breath and the male genitals being connected. You do yourself (and other Christians) no favours by using the word ghost. While in 1611 spirit and ghost were much tighter synonyms, they have seperated over 400 years. Ghosts are spooks and spectres or (in common myth) souls of the departed. The word spirit refers the essence of something.

Explain to me, if I were to need a kidney, cornea, lung, heart, or liver, why the a rib is the best material for a transplant?
Your statement seems to make a transplant and a clone equivalent. Therefore are you saying that a transplant receipiant carries two souls? theirs and the donors? Are you saying that a clone has no soul? or shares it with the donor?

Cracked!
 

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;85232]"Dude, you're smoking crack.":george:
As Xilman pointed out you are wrong about twins. It appears that you subscribe to the Leonardo DaVinci concept of breath and the male genitals being connected. You do yourself (and other Christians) no favours by using the word ghost. While in 1611 spirit and ghost were much tighter synonyms, they have seperated over 400 years. Ghosts are spooks and spectres or (in common myth) souls of the departed. The word spirit refers the essence of something.

Explain to me, if I were to need a kidney, cornea, lung, heart, or liver, why the a rib is the best material for a transplant?
Your statement seems to make a transplant and a clone equivalent. Therefore are you saying that a transplant receipiant carries two souls? theirs and the donors? Are you saying that a clone has no soul? or shares it with the donor?[/QUOTE]

:lol: Ha! Ha!
Not exactly Uncwilly! its just plain nicotine! And coffee the divine brew!
I'm not a biologist to know the intricacies of genetic mosaic identical twins(hope I got the right order). I've never heard the term before thanks to Paul.

A stupid question: Is it related in any way to the Mosaic Laws in Leviticus?

Well the whole problem amongst the posters is to define the soul and when it is attached to the embryo, at semination, at fertilisation or when the foetus takes its first breath, or somewhere in between ?

If you can save me the trouble of writing a treatise on it, by enlightening us all, myself included, I will
be very grateful, as this is definitely a grey area where the Bible, if Im not mistaken, remains very silent about it. May be you with your impressionable knowledge on Biblical knowledge either as a scholar or a believer (you have not clarified this question of mine) I, for one, will be highly obliged.

No I am not a Da Vinci fan as such and am a stranger to Dan Brown's speculation on Jesus and Mary Magdalene. or the P2 Lodge.
May be I should come out with a bit of my background so that you will not come out with veiled conclusions about my ideas.

Born a Roman Catholic and loyal to its teachings for many years when I underwent a transition until I was 'born again'.
I spent my childhood training under my mother and father both R.C.s.
Spent high school for 5 yrs as a full time boarder on the mountains of Mt.Abu under the Irish Christian brothers, a very strict R.C. order with adequate Christian teachings to qualify for the priesthood.
Then I spent two years under the Canadian Jesuits a more liberal and
innovative order on the mountains of North Point, Darjeeling when I was given a very liberal education in science and religion. There I mixed with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and a sprinkling of other lesser denominations from Burma and Thailand and of course English and Germans.
I left science for engineering and spent 7 yrs along with my bosses who were mainly oustanding English and Irish Freemasons during which time I was raised to a Master Mason 3rd. degree and did not pursue the higher degrees of the Royal Arch. BTW the common perception of the lay people is that we FM's deal with Spirits in a big way. No way! the only spirits I dealth with was alcohol which was served liberally and learned what true brotherhood meant.
One of the mandatory requirements is the belief in God so I mixed with men of all religions.
Well after that I spent travelling and met eminent religious heads including the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Maharishi Yogi ( of Beatles fame) RC. Cardinals and leading scientists of India and other countires. All the time I was a pilgrim seeking ideas from leading intellectuals of our era in almost every field be it medicine, psychiatry, science, mathematics, spiritualists you name it. I did keep away from Satanism though!
So there you have my story.

I agree with you that I am not doing anyone favours by using the term Holy Ghost. The R.C. church in India used the term Ghost while I did my formal years and it was only in the 80's with the Charismatic movement in India that they used the term Spirit. If you notice wherever I have used it in this Thread I have used both with a slash. Personally I use it to be wary that there is also the Evil Spirit and not to get mixed up with the two in any way. Try it, it helps.

Regards the rib being used in organ transplants it is my own theory that it contains something that prevents tissue rejection which is a safety requirement for such transplants. No I dont mean that it can be used for the actual organ itself. When you have coal and high octane as an option who will use the former for fuel? Regards cloning My idea is that it may help immensely but Im strictly not in medicine but more so in Healing.
Please dont translate literally though I suspect we have a language problem here.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE="mfgoode"]Please dont translate literally though I suspect we have a language problem here.[/QUOTE]Does that mean we are supposed to [i]interpret[/i] your posts as well as interpret the bible and also to interpret the religious teachings of others? I hope not because then the whole thing is pointless in discussing anything since we are all bound to interpret it all differently from each other. Literally is the only method we have that can at least give some hope of getting the intended meaning.