Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[grannymh]

In the same sense that an argument that there is a master race whose role is to ethnically cleanse the rest of the world should be judged on its merits?

Again, it is very important to acknowledge that God is the Creator. I know that is hard for some people – –
God does not disappear from our world, just because someone chooses not to believe. Nor do Catholic doctrines, revealed by God and protected by the Holy Spirit, change because some, not all, theologians write articles outside of CAF.

 

[grannymh]

Do you believe we are never justified in killing in self-defence - or in defence of an innocent person who will die if we don’t kill the attacker?

Sounds like this is missing the point of the concept that the end does not justify the means?

 

[grannymh]

Every argument should be judged on its merits taking its assumptions into consideration.

NB Every statement one makes is subject to an indefinite number of qualifications but that fact does not alter the truth of the statement…

At the end of life on this planet, who will be doing the judging?

 

[StAnastasia]

The argument that “soul worthiness” has anything to do with DNA is as merit-worthy as the argument that there’s a master race whose role is to ethnically cleanse the rest of the world.

Inocente, the argument about DNA is quite relevant. If you argue (which I do not) that

(1) *All *Homo sapiens have immortal souls that are worthy or eternal salvation

and

(2) *Only *Homo sapiens have immortal souls that are worthy or eternal salvation

then what is your criterion of distinction? Not all testicular tumors – some of which are parasitic twins and therefore ensouled – are clearly persons in their own right. Tumors that are merely outgrowths of the host will carry that host’s DNA. Parasitic twins will carry the DNA of both parents, identical to the twin that is hosting the tumor. Those tumors have immortal souls and are worthy of eternal salvation.

To take another example, suppose we travel eventually to another planet on which rational, moral, spiritual life has emerged. Suppose the inhabitants externally look quite similar to Homo sapiens, and even worship God in recognizable ways. How will we tell the difference between humans who have immortal souls that are worthy of eternal salvation, and aliens who look like us but who do not have immortal souls that are worthy of eternal salvation?

Easy: we do a DNA test. If the DNA is human, the being in question has an immortal soul worthy of eternal salvation.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I like your use of “She”. It redresses the balance in our historically patriarchal society - although I was once maliciously and falsely reported for expressing my views on the subject.

Tony, until someone shows me God’s DNA test proving the presence of a Y chromosome, or the Divine anatomy, I remain unconvinced that God is a male. The campus minister in our university liturgically addresses “God our Father and our Mother,” although personally I prefer to refer to God as God rather than as “He” or “She.” Since God as creator of gender transcends gender, I tell my students that if it helps their spirituality to refer to God exclusively as male, that’s fine. If it helps them to address their prayer to the female dimenion to God, that’s fine too!.

We don’t have all the answers but some of us have to make very difficult decisions - which can be eased if we realise that our informed conscience is our supreme authority and we should always choose what we believe to be the lesser of two evils…
(* ignoring the fact that Britain’s pesky pest population is exploding.)

Very nicely expressed!

 

[inocente]

Inocente, the argument about DNA is quite relevant. If you argue (which I do not) that

(1) *All *Homo sapiens have immortal souls that are worthy or eternal salvation

and

(2) *Only *Homo sapiens have immortal souls that are worthy or eternal salvation

then what is your criterion of distinction?

Why would we need criteria? God decides, it has nothing to do with us. I find even the language disturbing - how could anyone possibly get the idea they have anything to do with deciding who is “worthy”?

Not all testicular tumors – some of which are parasitic twins and therefore ensouled – are clearly persons in their own right. Tumors that are merely outgrowths of the host will carry that host’s DNA. Parasitic twins will carry the DNA of both parents, identical to the twin that is hosting the tumor. Those tumors have immortal souls and are worthy of eternal salvation.

We’ve known about DNA for less than 150 years. In another 150 years will the basis for who gets eternal salvation change all over again after some new discovery?

Easy: we do a DNA test. If the DNA is human, the being in question has an immortal soul worthy of eternal salvation.

You lost me completely. I see no basis for saying humans have immortal souls and putative aliens don’t. Suppose the aliens disagree, how will you sort that one out?

Any being “capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of God" can relate to God. Or at least that’s how I read Ratzinger (while I don’t believe in the special creation of man, I find it hard to think that the Pope has DNA on his mind here):

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God”. The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man … herein … lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel.

 

[StAnastasia]

Why would we need criteria? God decides, it has nothing to do with us. I find even the language disturbing - how could anyone possibly get the idea they have anything to do with deciding who is “worthy”?

Inocente, I completley agree with you. But the claim is often made on Catholic Answers that all human beings and only human beings have immortal souls. (e.g., post # 209: "If [aliens] are not human beings, then they can’t have been made “in his image”, because we were and we’re human beings! ")

While I reject as groundless the theory that “all human beings and only human beings have immortal souls,” I merely pointed out that since it is not even clear phenotypically what is a human being and what is not, DNA would be a test to determine that.

We’ve known about DNA for less than 150 years. In another 150 years will the basis for who gets eternal salvation change all over again after some new discovery?

DNA is not a basis for determining who gets salvation or who does not.

You lost me completely. I see no basis for saying humans have immortal souls and putative aliens don’t. Suppose the aliens disagree, how will you sort that one out?

I agree with you completely. The claim that God-worshipping aliens do not have immortal souls because only humans can possess souls is utterly incoherent.

Any being “capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of God" can relate to God. Or at least that’s how I read Ratzinger (while I don’t believe in the special creation of man, I find it hard to think that the Pope has DNA on his mind here):

Quite true!

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God”. The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man … herein … lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel.

And this point of “anthropogenesis” may have been reached during a number of generations 50,000 or 100,000 years before the “Adam and Eve” of the story existed.

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you believe we are never justified in killing in self-defence - or in defence of an innocent person who will die if we don’t kill the attacker?

Of course we are justified.

 

[grannymh]

Inocente, the argument about DNA is quite relevant. If you argue (which I do not) that

(1) *All *Homo sapiens have immortal souls that are worthy or eternal salvation

and

(2) *Only *Homo sapiens have immortal souls that are worthy or eternal salvation

then what is your criterion of distinction? Not all testicular tumors – some of which are parasitic twins and therefore ensouled – are clearly persons in their own right. Tumors that are merely outgrowths of the host will carry that host’s DNA.** Parasitic twins** will carry the DNA of both parents, identical to the twin that is hosting the tumor. Those tumors have immortal souls and are worthy of eternal salvation.

Emphasis mine.

Would it be o.k. for me to add some more information about “fetus in fetu” in which one organism feeds the other organism?

I do not want to appear that I am debating or contradicting your information sources. But I do have a right, according to CAF policy to present different information. And you have a right to continue discussing information from your position.

In common terminology, joined twins share common organs. However, this is not the case with “fetus in fetu” which is considered a parasite. In general, parasitism does not refer to the same organisms. Parasitism does refer to an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds: especially one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition)

The mass of cells (like a tumor) which in very rare instances can be enveloped within a human fetus is often referred to as a twin fetus; however, it cannot be considered the same as the true human fetus which serves as its host.

“while a fetus in fetu can share select morphological features with a normal fetus, it has no prospect of any life outside of the host twin.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu#Parasitic_twin_theory

This same link explains why the term “parasite twin” is scientifically different than the common usage of a human twin. There are major organs found in human parents (DNA) which are not present in the parasite feeding off its host.

“However, without the gestational conditions in utero with the amnion and placenta, a fetus in fetu can develop into, at best, an especially well differentiated teratoma; or, at worst, a high-grade metastatic teratocarcinoma. **In terms of physical maturation, its organs have a working blood supply from the host, but all cases of fetus in fetu present critical defects, such as no functional brain, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract.” **

Additional information from this link.

"fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is akin to that of a tumor in that its cells remain viable by way of normal metabolic activity."

 

[tonyrey]

I like your use of “She”. It redresses the balance in our historically patriarchal society - although I was once maliciously and falsely reported for expressing my views on the subject.

We don’t have all the answers but some of us have to make very difficult decisions - which can be eased if we realise that our informed conscience is our supreme authority and we should always choose what we believe to be the lesser of two evils…

Very nicely expressed!

Merci, madame!

 

[tonyrey]

Every argument should be judged on its merits

Our Lord and King - but in the meantime we have to make our own judgments (of arguments) and decisions…

 

[StAnastasia]

Merci, madame!

Mon plaisir, M’sieur. Je ne savais pas que vous êtes francophone! En tout cas, nous sommes d’accord sur les questions essentielles de cette discussion.

And now I must return to work!

StAnastasia

 

[tonyrey]

Mon plaisir, M’sieur. Je ne savais pas que vous êtes francophone! En tout cas, nous sommes d’accord sur les questions essentielles de cette discussion.

And now I must return to work!

StAnastasia

Bon courage! …* laborare est orare*…

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe we are never justified in killing in self-defence - or in defence of an innocent person who will die if we don’t kill the attacker?

If the end never justifies the means we are not entitled to kill (the means) in self-defence (the end)…

The overriding principle is that we should choose the lesser evil. By allowing ourselves or others to be killed unjustly we are condoning and encouraging murder - unless there is a particular reason for doing so (as Our Lord demonstrated).

 

[StAnastasia]

Would it be o.k. for me to add some more information about “fetus in fetu” in which one organism feeds the other organism?

Sure.

 

[grannymh]

Our Lord and King - but in the meantime we have to make our own judgments (of arguments) and decisions…

Now I understand your posts. Thank you for this clarification.

 

[grannymh]

If the end never justifies the means we are not entitled to kill (the means) in self-defence (the end)…

The overriding principle is that we should choose the lesser evil. By allowing ourselves or others to be killed unjustly we are condoning and encouraging murder - unless there is a particular reason for doing so (as Our Lord demonstrated).

By the way, I never said never.

However, since I now understand your posts…
Thank you for your clarification.

 

[tonyrey]

By the way, I never said never.

I apologise for misrepresenting you. I was struggling with the apparent conflict - between the principles - for several minutes!

However, since I now understand your posts…
Thank you for your clarification.

Thank you for your patience with a wretch… (That’s not quite the right word but I’m sure you know what I mean.)

 

[StAnastasia]

In common terminology, joined twins share common organs. However, this is not the case with “fetus in fetu” which is considered a parasite.

Correct. The question is whether the undeveloped twin – which may or may not eventually become a testicular or other tumor – retains the soul which was presumably “infused” at the moment of conception, or whether God withdraws this soul when it becomes apparent that the twin will not develop.

 

[grannymh]

Correct. The question is whether the undeveloped twin – which may or may not eventually become a testicular or other tumor – retains the soul which was presumably “infused” at the moment of conception, or whether God withdraws this soul when it becomes apparent that the twin will not develop.

May I respectfully point out that when a reader goes back to post 367, the parasite (undeveloped mass of cells) is essentially different from its developing feeder host, who is an individual human being. As the quoted material explains, the parasite was not intended to be an individual being. I do realize that the scientific jargon is a bit confusing; thus it is important to keep in mind that a mass of cells is not necessarily the same as a real human being who does have a spiritual soul.