Are all other worlds deprived of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshvanrad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tonyrey, please accept my apology, if you consider me to be condescending.

I did assume that you read my beginning of my post which even included the word “please”.
Here is the beginning of the post. Emphasis in this post is mine.

May I respectfully ask –

What is this “vanishing twin syndrome” you are talking about? Please describe this twin’s anatomy.
 
Because I am deeply concerned about worried pregnant women, I will not continue my part of this discussion. Please see post 391.

In addition,
I am more interested in basic information about the real issues of “fetus in fetu” which can be found in my posts 338, 343, 367, 389, and 391.

The following link is presented by another poster. This separate link is, in my personal, humble opinion, a distraction. If my humble opinion is not acceptable, then that person has my humble apology.

**Please note that the real thing of “fetus in fetu” is very, very rare. **

Do note that the link’s opening definition of a parasitic twin refers to processes as the source and not to human parents as the source.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twinI from another poster above.

The opening sentence is: A parasitic twin (also known as an asymmetrical or unequal conjoined twin) is the result of the processes that produce vanishing twins and conjoined twins, and may represent a continuum between the two.citation needed]

First I checked out the link to “vanishing twins.” It opened to: "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Medicine or the Medicine Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)"

Next I checked out the link to conjoined twins. It opened to: “Siamese twins” redirects here." Please look closely at the picture. No enveloped parasite.

Finally I checked “citation needed”. My suggestion is for readers to check this link directly. Close to the beginning is this sentence. “Exercise caution before relying upon unsourced claims.”
 
*I have not ignored it and taken it into account but the issue is not as clearcut as you imply. There are least two main theories about the development of fetus in fetu. The significant one:

"Very early in a monozygotic*
"A fetus-in-fetu (FIF) is an extremely rare abnormality occuring secondary to abnormal embryogenesis in a monochorionic diamniotic pregnancy where a one non viable **fetus **becomes enclosed within a normally developing fetus

The exact embryogenesis of fetus in fetu is controversial and there are two schools of thought:
  • some propose it occurs from the anomalous embryogenesis in a diamniotic monochorionic twin pregnancy in which a malformed monozygotic twin lies within the body of its fellow twin
  • others consider it to represent a highly organised teratoma."
radiopaedia.org/articles/fetus-in-fetu
fetus in fetu:
A parasitic twin is the result of a situation related to the process that results in teratomas, vanishing twin, and conjoined twins – two unique embryos begin developing in utero, but something goes wrong. Parasitic twins are also known as asymmetrical conjoined twins or unequal conjoined twins. …
iwww.kmle.com/search.php?Search=fetus%20in%20fetu
  1. God’s children are not conceived from parasites or from abnormal tissue growths.
2.** Subsequent** abnormality does not alter the fact that both fetuses exist due to conception.
  1. A fetus in fetu is not separate from its procreators because a fetus is the result of conception.
  2. A teratoma is not a fetus in fetu - although it may be the **result of a fetus in fetu.
**5. It was made clear at the outset that a teratoma which is not the result of **conception **is not a person.

I hope this clarifies my view. At all events this discussion has been sufficiently detailed to allow everyone to make up their minds about whether a fetus in fetu is “deprived of God”! Thank you for explaining your view of the matter. 👍
 
A planet deprived of God in many places due to the rejection of religion as an outmoded superstition with its unwelcome imposition of moral rules and principles… 😉
To get back to the original post, no other world is deprived of God. All that exists does so within the divine reality, which is infinitely greater. God is present to every dimension of creation.
 
To get back to the original post, no other world is deprived of God. All that exists does so within the divine reality, which is infinitely greater. God is present to every dimension of creation.
“Within the divine reality” (post 426-delightful inspiration)
Our world is not deprived of the Divine Reality. In fact, God calls us to share in His life through knowledge (our soul’s spiritual intellect and love (our soul’s spiritual will).

The reality of our human nature consists of the marvelous union of spirit and matter, spiritual soul and material anatomy. At the same time that God sustains and upholds our existence, we, as created individuals separate yet dependent on our Creator, can choose to be in His friendship or not. This indeed is a great mystery which Catholicism accepts in respect to the infinitely greater reality of a transcendent, Pure Spirit, without restrictions.

Are all other worlds deprived of God?
For me, that is an impossibility because of the Divine Reality of God.
 
“Within the divine reality” (post 426-delightful inspiration)
Our world is not deprived of the Divine Reality. In fact, God calls us to share in His life through knowledge (our soul’s spiritual intellect and love (our soul’s spiritual will).

The reality of our human nature consists of the marvelous union of spirit and matter, spiritual soul and material anatomy. At the same time that God sustains and upholds our existence, we, as created individuals separate yet dependent on our Creator, can choose to be in His friendship or not. This indeed is a great mystery which Catholicism accepts in respect to the infinitely greater reality of a transcendent, Pure Spirit, without restrictions.

Are all other worlds deprived of God?
For me, that is an impossibility because of the Divine Reality of God.
The original question was:

"How could they (persons on other planets) be aware of God’s presence when Jesus was sent to earth?

Since it is very unlikely they will know anything about Jesus or His teaching God must have enlightened them in some other way. We can only speculate about how He has done this but one thing is certain. We could never have imagined that the Creator of the uniinerse
 
“Within the divine reality” (post 426-delightful inspiration)
Our world is not deprived of the Divine Reality. In fact, God calls us to share in His life through knowledge (our soul’s spiritual intellect and love (our soul’s spiritual will).

The reality of our human nature consists of the marvelous union of spirit and matter, spiritual soul and material anatomy. At the same time that God sustains and upholds our existence, we, as created individuals separate yet dependent on our Creator, can choose to be in His friendship or not. This indeed is a great mystery which Catholicism accepts in respect to the infinitely greater reality of a transcendent, Pure Spirit, without restrictions.

Are all other worlds deprived of God?
For me, that is an impossibility because of the Divine Reality of God.
The original question was:

"How could they (persons on other planets) be aware of God’s presence when Jesus was sent to earth?

We could never have imagined that the omnipotent Creator of the universe would appear as a helpless baby at the mercy of His creatures! Anthony Flew called it “the scandal of particularity”. Yet a loving God wouldn’t leave His children totally in the dark and without help in their struggle against evil. The beauty of Christ’s teaching and love for us is sufficent evidence that He was not a lunatic or a liar.

Since it is very unlikely that the Good News has reaching other planets God must have enlightened them in some other way. We can speculate but one thing is certain. It is extremely unlikely our speculation will hit the mark…
 
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?
Killing is not an evil act in itself. Killing an innocent person is. We are allowed to kill in self-defense or in defense of an innocent person - if that innocent person is in danger from a person who is not innocent.

We are not allowed to kill an innocent person - in any situation, at any time. Never - not even to save every other innocent person in the world.
 
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."
Sometimes I think that people 200 years ago had it easier as they didn’t have to think about DNA or whether a specific “something” found inside a human being was a human being in itself, with a soul, or simply a mass of tissue, sans a soul.

But then I remember that back then certain “people” weren’t really considered to be people at all but just a percentage of people and this was based (perhaps partly) on the amount of melanin in their skin.

So I’ll just say that no matter where it is, how it appears, how old it is, whether it can survive on its own, where it came from, or where it is going, God is the one who passes out the souls and if it is a human being it has a soul. It’s His call, His decision. Slam-dunk.

All human beings have souls. But are human beings the only organisms who have souls? And does one need a soul to get into heaven, like a ticket to get on a train? Or is enough to be perfect?
 
Killing is not an evil act in itself. Killing an innocent person is. We are allowed to kill in self-defense or in defense of an innocent person - if that innocent person is in danger from a person who is not innocent.

We are not allowed to kill an innocent person - in any situation, at any time. Never - not even to save every other innocent person in the world.
You may be right but I **believe **we are justified in killing one innocent person if the
the survival of millions of innocent persons depends **solely **on our decision.

Jesus said “Do not fear those who kill the body…”

IMHO If this were the only life we have it would be the greatest of all evils not to kill the unwitting cause of the death of millions of innocent persons but since we survive after death the greatest evil is to allow them to die because I choose what I sincerely believe is the lesser of two evils. I am sure he or she would forgive me in the next life on discovering the agonising choice I had to make.

I can speak only for myself and I don’t claim to be infallible… 🤷
 
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).
That is not what the Church teaches. When we kill in self-defense we are not killing an innocent human being. Why is killing someone who is trying to kill me unjust and therefore murder? Aren’t I a human being? Don’t I count for something here?

Her teachings regarding human life make sense.

Remember that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is really “Thou shalt not murder” and that the Church teaches that the death penalty is appropriate when there is no other means to protect the innocent. But a direct abortion is *always * the killing of an innocent human being and is never allowed.

It’s not choosing the lesser of two evils. It’s that no evil means can be used, even in order to achieve a good end. Never:

“A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.”
(CCC 1753. underlining added by this poster for emphasis)
 
All human beings have souls. But are human beings the only organisms who have souls? And does one need a soul to get into heaven, like a ticket to get on a train? Or is enough to be perfect?
There is no evidence whasoever that we are the only creatures who have a soul.
 
That is not what the Church teaches. When we kill in self-defense we are not killing an innocent human being. Why is killing someone who is trying to kill me unjust and therefore murder? Aren’t I a human being? Don’t I count for something here?

Her teachings regarding human life make sense.

Remember that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is really “Thou shalt not murder” and that the Church teaches that the death penalty is appropriate when there is no other means to protect the innocent. But a direct abortion is *always * the killing of an innocent human being and is never allowed.

It’s not choosing the lesser of two evils. It’s that no evil means can be used, even in order to achieve a good end. Never.
Aren’t we justified in killing in self-defence or the defence of others?
 
Aren’t we justified in killing in self-defence or the defence of others?
Yes. It’s not an evil act to kill someone who is trying to kill you or other people. It’s also not murder - not even in a legal sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top