How could a human individual not be a human person?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJohn2300
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Snap, went back and saw you had already observed the C. Ratzinger thing. Always pays to closely read everybody’s contribs.

JPII relied heavily on him to write up that section methinks!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that’s the hardest thing about the redesign of the forums… it makes it very effort-ful to follow a long thread. 😦 It also doesn’t work well with ctrl-f. I had searched hard to see if anyone had dropped any pope names to see who we were talking about when we said “the pope sez”, and couldn’t find anything, so I had posted 101… but scrolling through today, I was able to catch instances that showed that yeah, everyone was on the same page. Sigh. 🙂
 
Midori, that’s a very interesting read from Blessed Mary of Agreda. Thanks for posting it. Here is what amazes me:
midori said:
  1. The day on which the first Conception of the body of the most holy Mary happened, was a Sunday
Click to expand...
midori said:
  1. On the Saturday next following this first Conception, the Almighty wrought the second Conception by creating the soul of his Mother and infusing it into the body
Click to expand...
The reason why this amazes me is that modern embryology tells us that if the ovum is fertilized on a Sunday, then the embryo implants in the womb on the following Saturday! Fertilization is the first conception, and implantation is the second conception since that is when the embryo starts receiving a steady supply of oxygen & nutrients.

I think what happened was that our blessed Mother revealed her own two conceptions and that Mary of Agreda just assumed that God must have accelerated the time so that the Immaculate Conception would only take 7 days instead of 80 (as the people of her day thought). It turns out that the second conception only takes 7 days for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
With respect to the embryologjst, wouldn’t saying the embryologjst makes souls be the same as saying a man and woman make a soul when they… make? (I know it wasn’t your intent to say someone other than God makes souls.) In other words, if God can make the soul of a person born by conception, He would make the souls of the split embryos, while the embryologjst would in this case be a physical catalyst akin to the sperm reaching the egg.

In essence, my thoughts are between two ideas.
It would be possible that either God could’ve created 8 souls in the zygote and each one, as the embryo was split, would gain a unique embryo. I personally dislike this branch though due to the questions it would bring up in regards to the body-soul relationship if multiple souls could inhabit one body.

The other idea, and I like this more, is that God, knowing whether or not those split off cells would stay independent could create the soul of each new embryo as they formed.
To put this into the case of identical twins, that there would be one soul at conception and a second soul created at split.
Such a way could also be a way of figuring out zygotes that split and later rejoin in that God, knowing whether or not rejoining would happen, could not create a second soul in such a case. Much as your arm is not a new soul should it be separated from you.

I’m at the curious if there are any unpleasant ramifications of such a theory that I may have overlooked.
 
The homunculus of the twinning cell is the sensitive soul of a brute animal cell not simple vegetative. Get your bad Thomistic viewpoint right. Brute animals cage wrestle at 9 PM tonite, pronto.
Causal process philosophy from Aquinas applied to modern scientific understanding, that based upon the church developed principles of the scientific method and natural science, properly discern the individual as a new human person (or, without objection persons, should identical twins form) at conception.
Because Thomas did not have the advantage of knowing the organelle was bad science in no way denies the rational process he defines. Do you believe the propositions made on quantum physics data of today will stand unchanged in fifty years?
What then of the caustic philosophies drenched in what will be bad science fifty years from today?
None will last as has Thomas. How hard do you find it to apply the causal basis of Aquinas to the scientific understanding of modern biology?
 
Last edited:
My guess is that you better interpret the nature of Daniel’s original posting. As he is a student of blessed Mary of Agreda, may her cause be accepted, the question implies something more. Perhaps Mary has a reportable miracle in secure embryology labs run by Macchiavellian skeptics? Better understood as germ warfare labs.
Would genetic modifications be capable of establishing a human form from a human embryo that is mutated into an animal? What would we perceive of this non human living creature which resembles a human in most physical characteristics but is a “devo” in reality? A cute title for a rock and roll band but not so much for a purposely developed mutation of “human life forms.”
Rhetorical question? Or, not so much?
 
DanielJohn2300 said:
Midori, that’s a very interesting read from Blessed Mary of Agreda. Thanks for posting it. Here is what amazes me:
40.png
midori:
  1. The day on which the first Conception of the body of the most holy Mary happened, was a Sunday
Click to expand...
midori said:
  1. On the Saturday next following this first Conception, the Almighty wrought the second Conception by creating the soul of his Mother and infusing it into the body
Click to expand...
The reason why this amazes me is that modern embryology tells us that if the ovum is fertilized on a Sunday, then the embryo implants in the womb on the following Saturday! Fertilization is the first conception, and implantation is the second conception since that is when the embryo starts receiving a steady supply of oxygen & nutrients.

I think what happened was that our blessed Mother revealed her own two conceptions and that Mary of Agreda just assumed that God must have accelerated the time so that the Immaculate Conception would only take 7 days instead of 80 (as the people of her day thought). It turns out that the second conception only takes 7 days for all of us.
Click to expand...
I think that’s awesome! Why would God create souls for a period with so much wastage?

yeah good one Thank you midori, you too DanielJohn

It also recall Jesus saying something like…Sacrifices didn’t please you but for me you prepared a body
 
Last edited:
Perhaps some other contributer here can translate your somewhat stream of consciousness contributions into a meaningful sentence or two linked to my observations thanks.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Anti abortionists are mistaken to argue that abortion is wrong because a full human person exists from conception. The Church never argued this for 1700 yrs and it still has not declared that science has proven this.

Nor has science proven this as yet for the reasons stated.

It is also a philosophic issue with no final Catholic consensus as yet.
Click to expand...
I get what you mean.
I don’t think personhood should matter either. On a moral level, not knowing when ensoulment happens is eneogh to not do it .If it’s not, just shows a lack of respect for human life. Unfortunately we live in a world of people who will abort without some proof against when ‘they’ think it’s ok.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Do they share the same original soul?

Did the embryologist make the 7 new souls?

Which has the original soul?

What happened to the original soul?

Now Aquinas would likely hold that lower “material souls” can arise from the processes of matter ifself. But human rational souls are spiritual and immortal and infused directly by God.

Which soul better explains these difficulties?

It does seem a material soul better solves the conundrum.
Click to expand...
God is omniscient. He creates every instant and everything in it as the instants of time proceed Really these aren’t theological difficulties imo.
I’ve always considered the intellectual soul, since it possesses the powers of vegetative , material and intellectual powers, that the body could be lifted up to it’s highest natural state. The animal soul is made from material processes perhaps the infusion is different than humans.
 
I really don’t understand what you are saying.
I don’t think its Aquinas.

How can a human intervention create immortal souls?
God obeys the lancet? Aquinas could not agree with this.

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume the news souls arise from matter and what we do to it.
In which case that’s a material soul and explicable to Aquinas.
 
Last edited:
I am assuming that God is infusing the soul when the zygote develops. since it is able to direct it’s growth , that makes an intellectual soul evident.
 
Sensible souls that get intellect grafted on…is that what you’re thinking?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I really don’t understand what you are saying.

I don’t think its Aquinas.

How don’t seem to answer the question - how can a human intervention create immortal souls?

God obeys the lancet? Aquinas could not agree with this.

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume the news souls arise from matter and what we do to it.

In which case that’s a material soul and explicable to Aquinas.
Click to expand...
Apparently I’m missing something…I probably should know. dang memory
 
not aquinas…but if the zygote can direct it’s growth to it’s final end( it can) it has within it salready the info or pattern required for intellect
 
So God infuses an individual soul, then after teasing another 7 souls?
And if the doctor balls the jelly back together again where do the 7 souls go?
 
God knows how many souls and when they individuate. He would know beforehand Omniscience outside of time. Later
 
Last edited:
You still don’t seem to understand the issue. Maybe another time.
Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top