Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[grannymh]

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!

Emphasis mine.

I am so glad you used the word “if”.

Tumour**,** also spelled tumor, also called neoplasm, a mass of abnormal tissue that arises without obvious cause from preexisting body cells, has no purposeful function, and is characterized by a tendency to independent and unrestrained growth.
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/608802/tumour
see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that comatose or severely retarded persons are **of human stock **

Our reasons are not the same but our conclusions are!

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?

The law of conservation of energy rules out free will at the physical level.

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?

Non-existent! But neither our lives nor the lives of our predecessors would have been valueless, purposeless or meaningless. Every form of life has its place, radiance and significance in the great Chain of Being…

 

[StAnastasia]

The law of conservation of energy rules out free will at the physical level.

Please justify this claim.

Non-existent! But neither our lives nor the lives of our predecessors would have been valueless, purposeless or meaningless. Every form of life has its place, radiance and significance in the great Chain of Being…

I don’t agree that philosophy and theology would have been non-existent. They would have considerably more simple, of course, but as long as there has been language and thought there have existed philosophical and theological reasoning.

 

[StAnastasia]

Even if a person turns into a tumour I don’t see why it should make any difference to having a soul.

Tony, it’s not so much a matter of a person turning into a tumor as of the embryo never having the genes turn on for full fetal development. It remains embryonic or fetal within the host person, and later in that person’s life may turn metastatic.

 

[grannymh]

True, and that’s why I cleave to the hope in the life of the world to come, rather than in an individualistic eschatology in which souls are raptured out of bodies. If God saw that the creation is good, presumably God intends to include that creation in the world to come. I look forward to birds, and squirrels, and the wind blowing through pine trees, and the rushing of waterfalls, and the company of my beloved cat. All this is part of the "beatific vision."

 

[grannymh]

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?

I respect your right to the opinion that the immaterial soul would have to be proven.
I do not fault you for your free speech.

On the other hand, I, too, have the right to point out that the spiritual soul is not part of the physical/material world of science.

Ah, one says. The spiritual soul cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Whoa! This stopped me cold. Just to clarify, you use the term “tumor.” You are not including teratomas, are you?

(My spell-check tried to change “teratomas” into “tea-rooms.” Very strange.)

 

[StAnastasia]

Whoa! This stopped me cold. Just to clarify, you use the term “tumor.” You are not including teratomas, are you? (My spell-check tried to change “teratomas” into “tea-rooms.” Very strange.)

Not all teratomas would have souls, but some would – those that formed from ensouled embryos that failed to develop. The ethical question is whether it is ever morally legitimate to kill an ensouled teratoma that is endangering its host’s life.

StAnastasia

PS – I suspect most spell checkers are more familiar with tea rooms than they are with teratomas!

 

[tonyrey]

Even if a person turns into a tumour I don’t see why it should make any difference to having a soul.

Tony, it’s not so much a matter of a person turning into a tumor as of the embryo never having the genes turn on for full fetal development. It remains embryonic or fetal within the host person, and later in that person’s life may turn metastatic.
The Church teaches that a person’s life begins at the moment of conception and I see no logical reason for disputing that doctrine. No matter what happens that person cannot cease to exist because physical changes do not affect the soul.

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia;8804970:

The Church teaches that a person’s life begins at the moment of conception and I see no logical reason for disputing that doctrine. No matter what happens that person cannot cease to exist because physical changes do not affect the soul.

So Tony, do you think it would be legitimate to surgically remove a teratoma from a young man? A fetus-in-fetu teratoma is often gonadal, leading (in males) to testicular cancer.

The principle of double effect suggests that if you kill someone but the death is an unintended consequence of another action, that killing is not morally wrong. However, in removing the teratoma from the young man you are directly willing its death to save the life of its host. If you believe the teratoma has never ceased to be a person from the moment of its conception, will you be directly and willfully killing a “person”? If you are, is this wrong? Or in this instance do the rules of self-defense apply, with the teratoma standing in the role of aggressor?

Intriguing questions!
StAnastasia

 

[tonyrey]

So Tony, do you think it would be legitimate to surgically remove a teratoma from a young man? A fetus-in-fetu teratoma is often gonadal, leading (in males) to testicular cancer.

I prefer the principle of the lesser of two evils. Since the teratoma will die anyway one is justified in saving the life of the young man.

The question of whether the teratoma is a person should not be revisited in an attempt to justify its removal! It is a logical presumption that the offspring of a human couple are human and have a right to life regardless of any abnormality. Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to eugenics, abortion and euthanasia. Some time ago I was rightly reprimanded on this forum for suggesting an anencephalic child is not a person - by a mother who had a loving relationship with her afflicted son…

 

[StAnastasia]

I prefer the principle of the lesser of two evils. Since the teratoma will die anyway one is justified in saving the life of the young man.

If you have two bugs in a cotton field, one is the lesser of two weevils.

The question of whether the teratoma is a person should not be revisited in an attempt to justify its removal! It is a logical presumption that the offspring of a human couple are human and have a right to life regardless of any abnormality. Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to eugenics, abortion and euthanasia. Some time ago I was rightly reprimanded on this forum for suggesting an anencephalic child is not a person - by a mother who had a loving relationship with her afflicted son.

That’s why I avoid slippery slopes altogether. I find the theory that “all-human-DNA-and-only-human-DNA-has-an-immortal soul” to be incoherent. I leave it up to God to redeem what She will, and not to pretend that we have all the answers!

 

[tonyrey]

I prefer the principle of the lesser of two evils. Since the teratoma will die anyway one is justified in saving the life of the young man.

                             You are skating on thin ice! Some one is bound to misinterpret your sense of humour...* ;)

The question of whether the teratoma is a person should not be revisited in an attempt to justify its removal! It is a logical presumption that the offspring of a human couple are human and have a right to life regardless of any abnormality. Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to eugenics, abortion and euthanasia. Some time ago I was rightly reprimanded on this forum for suggesting an anencephalic child is not a person - by a mother who had a loving relationship with her afflicted son.

That’s why I avoid slippery slopes altogether. I find the theory that “all-human-DNA-and-only-human-DNA-has-an-immortal soul” to be incoherent. I leave it up to God to redeem what She will, and not to pretend that we have all the answers!

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…
(* ignoring the fact that Britain’s pesky pest population is exploding.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

I prefer the principle of the lesser of two evils. Since the teratoma will die anyway one is justified in saving the life of the young man.

The question of whether the teratoma is a person should not be revisited in an attempt to justify its removal! It is a logical presumption that the offspring of a human couple are human and have a right to life regardless of any abnormality. Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to eugenics, abortion and euthanasia. Some time ago I was rightly reprimanded on this forum for suggesting an anencephalic child is not a person - by a mother who had a loving relationship with her afflicted son…

But no evil act can be done - even in an attempt to achieve a good end. That is Church teaching (and I am absolutely positive about it). That’s why the direct killing of an embryo is *always *wrong and why a certain nun in a certain hospital in Arizona was excommunicated and the hospital lost its Catholic affiliation.

I don’t think we’re on the slippery slope you have described although much of the world may already be at the bottom. In Oregon physician-assisted suicide is legal and I had a conversation with a friend who described one case and said how beautiful it was. All I could think of was “No! No! No!”

(If my posts are illogical and/or off-topic I apologize. I have lost one of my much-loved cats. He disappeared and tonight will be the second night he is gone. The chances of him returning are about one in a hundred. I’m grieving for him.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

So Tony, do you think it would be legitimate to surgically remove a teratoma from a young man? A fetus-in-fetu teratoma is often gonadal, leading (in males) to testicular cancer.

The principle of double effect suggests that if you kill someone but the death is an unintended consequence of another action, that killing is not morally wrong. However, in removing the teratoma from the young man you are directly willing its death to save the life of its host. If you believe the teratoma has never ceased to be a person from the moment of its conception, will you be directly and willfully killing a “person”? If you are, is this wrong? Or in this instance do the rules of self-defense apply, with the teratoma standing in the role of aggressor?

Intriguing questions!
StAnastasia

It’s my understanding that intent is the key. If the intent is to kill the teratoma its removal is wrong. If the intent is to save the life of the human being who is “host” to the teratoma its removal is licit.

It seems like a fine line to me and I’m glad that the bishops are the ones who review the cases - not me.

As to self-defense, unborn children are now being referred to as “womb squatters” by some; like they somehow managed to “break” into the womb and are remaining there with tiny guns and no intention to leave until they want to. Perhaps those embryos who remain in the fallopian tubes are intending to murder their hosts and commit suicide at the same time.

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s my understanding that intent is the key. If the intent is to kill the teratoma its removal is wrong. If the intent is to save the life of the human being who is “host” to the teratoma its removal is licit. It seems like a fine line to me and I’m glad that the bishops are the ones who review the cases - not me.

It is a fine line, and a difficult one. I’ve worked as a medical ethicist, and I know the difficulty people like me are under. However, it would be very difficult to remove the teratoma and say you are not willing it’s death. There is not way it could survive outside it’s twin, so it will die if removed. On the other hand, there was no potential for it to have any other “life” thank it did as a parasitic tumor.

As to self-defense, unborn children are now being referred to as “womb squatters” by some; like they somehow managed to “break” into the womb and are remaining there with tiny guns and no intention to leave until they want to.

Sound very silly to me; I haven’t heard that before.

Perhaps those embryos who remain in the fallopian tubes are intending to murder their hosts and commit suicide at the same time.

I can’t see a moral problem with aborting an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Khalid]

If you have two bugs in a cotton field, one is the lesser of two weevils.

That’s why I avoid slippery slopes altogether. I find the theory that “all-human-DNA-and-only-human-DNA-has-an-immortal soul” to be incoherent. I leave it up to God to redeem what She will, and not to pretend that we have all the answers!

I think, however many degrees you have earned and however many papers published, that statement discredits you.

DNA has nothing to do with soul, as has been pointed out in this thread before (read some Aristotle - De Anima). The last clause sounds nearly Calvinist (unconditional election), in a modernist-beyond-belief-feminist-liberation-theology way, if that’s not a very contradiction-in-terms. Are you sure you’re not Elaine Pagels’ pseudonym?

I apologize if your post was meant to be humour.

 

[LittleSoldier]

True, and that’s why I cleave to the hope in the life of the world to come, rather than in an individualistic eschatology in which souls are raptured out of bodies. If God saw that the creation is good, presumably God intends to include that creation in the world to come. I look forward to birds, and squirrels, and the wind blowing through pine trees, and the rushing of waterfalls, and the company of my beloved cat. All this is part of the “beatific vision.”

Thank you for this part of your post. I found much comfort from it. It’s my belief that the Church does not describe heaven in the words you have used or with any other words. We are certainly free to imagine and discuss what heaven might be like.

I have no references that would be acceptable; just a trust in a fellow human being who seems to understand the Church and God much more than I do. She reads everything she can and has done so for about 15 years… Tonight when I was on the phone with her and crying over the probable loss of my cat (who really isn’t my cat as he belongs to God) we got to talking about heaven.

She said that many who have gone through near-death experiences have claimed that there are gardens in heaven. If they are correct then I see no reason why there would not be birds and squirrels there, too. I hadn’t thought of waterfalls and the wind blowing but it is certainly possible. Who am I to say?

We know that everything God creates is good and that He knows every tiny bit of every being. Surely He knows my missing cat! And as my cat is pure and sinless I am certain that God will provide for him. He will somehow see the Light of God and while I am grieving for him (though I haven’t given up all hope for his return) I would be selfish if I demanded that God take him out of heaven and return him to me.

I think the world is a very poor reflection of heaven but it is still beautiful and overwhelms me when I stand on a rocky beach and look out over the ocean. How beautiful heaven must be! I hope that all the animals I have lost over the years are there and that I will be with them after I die. From where I stand now it seems like it will take forever to get there but I have a feeling that in heaven my wait would be experienced as no more than the time to take a breath.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is a fine line, and a difficult one. I’ve worked as a medical ethicist, and I know the difficulty people like me are under. However, it would be very difficult to remove the teratoma and say you are not willing it’s death. There is not way it could survive outside it’s twin, so it will die if removed. On the other hand, there was no potential for it to have any other “life” thank it did as a parasitic tumor.

If the teratoma is a human being it has a soul and I would never will its death. I would also not will the death of the human being who is carrying it inside. All human life is sacred and the loss of such life, even as a side-effect or consequence of efforts to save another human being is tragic. I would mourn the death of a parasitic tumor (*if *it is a human being) just as much as I now mourn the dumping of embryos that lived in petri dishes.

Sound very silly to me; I haven’t heard that before.

It is very silly but it’s getting to the point where nothing surprises me when it comes to sex and abortion.

I can’t see a moral problem with aborting an ectopic pregnancy.

There is no moral problem if the intent is not to kill the embryo but to save the mother. A direct abortion can never be licit.

 

[grannymh]

I prefer the principle of the lesser of two evils. Since the teratoma will die anyway one is justified in saving the life of the young man.

The question of whether the teratoma is a person should not be revisited in an attempt to justify its removal! It is a logical presumption that the offspring of a human couple are human and have a right to life regardless of any abnormality. Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to eugenics, abortion and euthanasia. Some time ago I was rightly reprimanded on this forum for suggesting an anencephalic child is not a person - by a mother who had a loving relationship with her afflicted son…

My apology. I have not kept up with this thread. And now I am confused about the teratoma discussion. “Teratomas are made up of a variety of parenchymal cell types representing more than 1 germ layer and often all 3.” emedicine.medscape.com/article/281850-overview#a0104

Depending on the individual teratoma or tumor, treatment is available such as in utero surgery. emedicine.medscape.com/article/281850-treatment

This sounds to me that a teratoma is similar to a “lump” in a breast. I really doubt that anyone would consider this “lump” a fully-complete human being. So I don’t understand this lesser of two evils bit. Nor do I understand the suggestion of a spiritual soul in tumor cells. Or did I misread a post? If I did misread a post, skip the suggestion of a spiritual soul in tumor cells. And I do apologize if I misread a post in such a way.

Since you have been posting on this issue or topic, would you kindly give me the “bottom line” as you would summarize it. Thank you.