Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[LittleSoldier]

You can get it for $6 on the Kindle. The NT is exactly the same. The OT is slightly better, but still bad: overall, it’s hard to tell the difference. The register of English has been raised slightly; there are no important “translational” or doctrinal differences.

To enlarge print on a page hit the control button (CTRL, lower left corner of keyboard) and roll your mouse wheel away from you. It will apply the changes across every page in the same domain (i.e. if one enlarges one page on forums.catholic-questions.org, the changes are sticky across all *.catholic.com pages).

To make the print smaller, do the same and roll the wheel towards you. This works in every browser (Opera, Chrome, Firefox, IE) that I know of. If it doesn’t work for you, download Firefox or Chrome so you can enlarge the font easily.

Thanks for the info on Kindle. I’m rather surprised it is so inexpensive. I had hoped that the translation problems had been worked out. Evidently they still haven’t been. But even I can afford $6 and as I don’t have the older edition I think I will purchase the new edition.

I don’t have a mouse wheel and I tried using the mouse built into the computer but it didn’t work. But hitting CTRL and + did. Thanks for trying to help with that problem.

I hope that now my posts are easier to read.

 

[StAnastasia]

You anticipated my question! But it’s not clear how or what DNA would tell us.

Tony, the DNA would tell us whether the fetal tissue is Homo sapiens or not. The Homo sapiens is soul-worthy; his not-yet-quite-Homo sapiens parent is not. At least that’s the argument I’ve read.

 

[StAnastasia]

The idea of “worthy” is intriguing. It reminds me of the belief of Keats that this is “a vale of soul-making”.

Tony, “worthiness” is a slippery concept. Some cancerous tumors have immortal souls, leading to the conundrum of whether it is morally acceptable to kill them to save the life of the host. But I don’t think one would say the tumor is unworthy to receive a soul.

 

[grannymh]

For general information.

The sequencing of 20,000 to 25,000 human genes can impart a lot of valuable information. There are a number of companies who offer genome sequencing for a price. It is important that the buyer be aware that not all companies are equal as far as what is sequenced and how this is done. It is interesting that some companies offer not to disclose information about certain genes connected to hereditary diseases. There is some information which people can choose not to know.

While human DNA information is valuable, it is still based on material cells in a physical human anatomy existing at some point in history. It is true that DNA information might tell us if the anatomy of the customer is worthy of having a soul infused. We do have gene functions which are different from other vertebrates.

However, in my own, personal, humble opinion, there is a consideration which needs exploration especially in regard to humans on this planet. I have no clue about any kind of possible life in other worlds deprived by God.

In this world, human nature, itself, is an unique composite of spirit and matter. This union is so profound that it is precisely because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human person. Because God directly creates the spiritual soul, the entity is at once a human person. (There is no emergence of a spiritual soul.) When it comes to DNA testing of a human, this entity already posses the spiritual soul. Thus, the possible question of worthiness has already been solved by God Himself.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[grannymh]

Curious. It must have some connection, unless it is mere coincidence that spiritual souls are always found associated with human DNA, but never found associated with any other type of DNA.

The suggestion of “mere coincidence” is on target. Thank you.

This is my own, personal, humble suggestion. Of course it is a coincidence that the God-created ( no emergence from the anatomy) spiritual soul is always part of the human person. Thus by extension of that fact, one finds human DNA.

 

[inocente]

Oh, you can test for human DNA. If it has human DNA it is capable of having a soul. If it does not have DNA – even if it is the pre-human parent of someone with DNA – is is incapable of bearing an “immortal soul.” That is the argument, at least.

One implication is there are genes which code for the capability to have an immortal soul, which we could manipulate.

Where does the argument come from? It sounds like either a brazen attempt to make science the final arbiter of truth, or else just another flaky bit of pseudo-science for the easily pleased.

 

[tonyrey]

Sir Charles Sherrington believed - with good reason - that it is impossible to know at what level of life the soul emerges… but wonderful though they are there is no evidence that animals have spiritual awareness or are morally responsible for their behaviour. (Perhaps the same could be said of some human beings

My reference was not to the soul but to spiritual awareness and moral responsibility - which seem to vary from one person to another.

 

[StAnastasia]

One implication is there are genes which code for the capability to have an immortal soul, which we could manipulate.

Inocente, I don’t think “soul receptability” is coded for by any one gene. Rather, the capacity to receive an “immortal soul” is a function of many genes that make up an entity. Human intelligence and moral and spiritual awareness are not the product of a single gene.

Where does the argument come from? It sounds like either a brazen attempt to make science the final arbiter of truth, or else just another flaky bit of pseudo-science for the easily pleased.

Flaky pseudo-cience.

 

[StAnastasia]

My reference was not to the soul but to spiritual awareness and moral responsibility - which seem to vary from one person to another.

They do. Kanzi the Bonobo has higher intelligence and a greater sense of right and wrong than do some humans. That’s why, if the humans have immortal souls and Kanzi the Bonobo does not, it must be because they have human DNA to which soulishness is related, and the Bonobo does not.

 

[tonyrey]

They do. Kanzi the Bonobo has higher intelligence and a greater sense of right and wrong than do some humans. That’s why, if the humans have immortal souls and Kanzi the Bonobo does not, it must be because they have human DNA to which soulishness is related, and the Bonobo does not.

It’s an interesting possibility. I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that human beings are the **only **beings in the universe with souls! On the other hand there is no reason to believe an ape is “able to know and love his creator” or “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons”. Yet this doesn’t mean an ape has no rights or an afterlife. It would be presumptuous to limit God’s love for His creatures to homo sapiens.

 

[tonyrey]

Where does the argument come from? It sounds like either a brazen attempt to make science the final arbiter of truth, or else just another flaky bit of pseudo-science for the easily pleased.

An argument should be judged on its merits not on its origin or by irrelevant speculation.

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s an interesting possibility. I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that human beings are the **only **beings in the universe with souls! On the other hand there is no reason to believe an ape is “able to know and love his creator” or “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons”. Yet this doesn’t mean an ape has no rights or an afterlife. It would be presumptuous to limit God’s love for His creatures to homo sapiens.

Tony, I agree with some of what you write. However, as it stands, if the capacity to be infused with an immortal soul rests upon “capability of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons,” this rules out a number of beings with human DNA. There are many humans – comatose or severely retarded humans – who do not possess these capabilities. Are you willing to say they do not have immortal souls? Are you willing to say that some cancerous tumors do not have immortal souls, even though they have human DNA?

And on what grounds do you say "there is no reason to believe an ape is able to know and love his creator or “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons?” How much do you know about the interior life of Kanzi? How do you know for certain that a bonobo does not have as great or greater capacity in this regard as some humans? Koko the gorilla was quite aware of what death meant, and grieved as a human does.

These are intriguing questions!

there is no reason to believe an ape is “able to know and love his creator” or “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons”.

 

[tonyrey]

The idea of “worthy” is intriguing. It reminds me of the belief of Keats that this is “a vale of soul-making”.

I wasn’t aware that some cancerous tumors have immortal souls but in any case it seems to me that the soul is a gift which no one is worthy to receive - in the sense of having done something to deserve it.

 

[StAnastasia]

I wasn’t aware that some cancerous tumors have immortal souls but in any case it seems to me that the soul is a gift which no one is worthy to receive - in the sense of having done something to deserve it.

Some cancerous tumors started out life as a twin. The one twin developed normally; the other did not develop but lay dormant until the twin reached adulthood. The dormant twin then had genes switch on that did not allow it to become a fully physical person, but that turned it into a metastatic tumor, a teratoma. Such teratomas in males are gonadic, and if not removed, turn into life-threatening testicular cancer.

If you subscribe to the theory that souls are infused into fertilized ova at the moment of conception, the dormant twin would not cease being an ensouled person even when it turns into a metastatic cancer that must be removed.

StAnastasia

 

[tonyrey]

*It’s an interesting possibility. I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches that human beings are the **only ***

The fact that comatose or severely retarded persons are **of human stock **increases the probability that they have immortal souls because it seems unjust that misfortune should exclude them from heaven and separate them from their loved ones forever. I meant that the infusion of the soul **confers **the capability of self-knowledge, self-possession and self-sacrifice rather than being **a condition **of its infusion!

And on what grounds do you say "there is no reason to believe an ape is able to know and love his creator or “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons?” How much do you know about the interior life of Kanzi? How do you know for certain that a bonobo does not have as great or greater capacity in this regard as some humans? Koko the gorilla was quite aware of what death meant, and grieved as a human does.These are intriguing questions!

Indeed and it is presumptuous to think we know all the answers. There seems no evidence that Kanzi is aware of, or loves, his Creator but invincible ignorance per se doesn’t justify eternal separation from those he loves and who love him. His capacity for love is itself a powerful reason for believing he survives after death…

 

[StAnastasia]

The fact that comatose or severely retarded persons are **of human stock **increases the probability that they have immortal souls because it seems unjust that misfortune should exclude them from heaven and separate them from their loved ones forever.

That’s what I’m saying: a comatose or severely retarded person has Homo sapiens DNA and is therefore worthy of being ensouled.

I meant that the infusion of the soul confers the capability of self-knowledge, self-possession and self-sacrifice rather than being a condition of its infusion!

This would be very difficult to argue. The idea that an immaterial soul is what makes self-knowledge, self-possession and self-sacrifice possible would have to be proven. Do you have evidence that (1) it is a soul that makes the capacities possible, or that (2) these abilities cannot possibly be present in any other species, terrestrial or extraterrestrial?

Indeed and it is presumptuous to think we know all the answers. There seems no evidence that Kanzi is aware of, or loves, his Creator but invincible ignorance per se doesn’t justify eternal separation from those he loves and who love him. His capacity for love is itself a powerful reason for believing he survives after death.

Yes, these are difficult questions. Had we been around 200,000 years ago when anatomical modernity was reached by the first Homo sapiens, what might our philosophical and theological conversations have been like?

 

[tonyrey]

*I

wasn’t aware that some cancerous tumors have immortal souls but in any case it seems to me that the soul is a gift which no one is worthy to receive - in the sense of having done something to deserve it.

Thank you for that information. I didn’t associate tumours with souls!

Even if a person turns into a tumour I don’t see why it should make any difference to having a soul. Anomalies are bound to occur sooner or later but physical events don’t alter spiritual realities. Once a person always a person!

If we think of ourselves as members of the Body of Christ rather than isolated individuals all these unusual events become insignificant. A legalistic interpretation of the Gospels is often unjustified because God is not bound by the rules He has made for man! The overriding principle of our faith should be whether our beliefs correspond to the infinite love revealed on the Cross - and to the words of Jesus: “With God all things are possible.”

 

[StAnastasia]

Thank you for that information. I didn’t associate tumours with souls!

We’re not usually taught that.

Even if a person turns into a tumour I don’t see why it should make any difference to having a soul. Anomalies are bound to occur sooner or later but physical events don’t alter spiritual realities. Once a person always a person!

 

[grannymh]

My reference was not to the soul but to spiritual awareness and moral responsibility - which seem to vary from one person to another.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[grannymh]

In general, apes and similar animals closely related to humans have highly developed sentience and natural instincts. Humans also have highly developed sentience and natural instincts. However, there are observable differences between the human teacher and the **student **Kanzi.