When is soul created?

[zro_x]

Yes. And since St. John the Baptist leaped in the womb when Mary visited after the Incarnation. There are two Biblical examples of ensoulment at conception.

This is a biblical proof of ensoulment during pregnancy, not necessarily during conception.

 

[myelin]

This is a biblical proof of ensoulment during pregnancy, not necessarily during conception.

Sorry your wrong.

The unification of the two cells at conception.

ever see it on the new equip ?

there is no other more powerful event explaining realism then unification…therefore you are flat out mistaken if, in fact there is a soul.

And looking at Catholics today…I would wager only a micro amount of assets, soul exists - period.

 

[zro_x]

Sorry your wrong.

The unification of the two cells at conception.

ever see it on the new equip ?

there is no other more powerful event explaining realism then unification…therefore you are flat out mistaken if, in fact there is a soul.

And looking at Catholics today…I would wager only a micro amount of assets, soul exists - period.

I did not argue that life does not begin at conception; I only argued that the visitation does not provide a reliable proof of this claim.

 

[myelin]

I did not argue that life does not begin at conception; I only argued that the visitation does not provide a reliable proof of this claim.

I thought you said soul, what is this visitation business? this is new to me.

 

[zro_x]

I thought you said soul, what is this visitation business? this is new to me.

In the post you quoted, I was saying that the visitation, when John the Baptist leaped in the womb of his mother, only provides evidence that ensoulment occurs sometime before birth. The Serpent suggested that the visitation provided proof for ensoulment at conception.

 

[myelin]

In the post you quoted, I was saying that the visitation, when John the Baptist leaped in the womb of his mother, only provides evidence that ensoulment occurs sometime before birth. The Serpent suggested that the visitation provided proof for ensoulment at conception.

Ok understood…great idea for the thread…have a few ideas but would like to think about this mysterious happening and get back.

 

[Arandur]

zro x, I think I’m on the same page with you.

Maso, Jeremiah 1:5 is simple, yes. God “knew.” He had plans. He knew what He was going to do. He even knows what you are going to do. Jeremiah 1:5 proves:

1. God’s perfect foreknowledge;
2. God has specific plans and intentions for individuals; and
3. God forms people in the womb.

Notice that the only language that speaks about God creating anything has to do with in the womb, not before. Before the womb, it’s knowledge of. In the womb, there is forming being done. Nothing in Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of God doing any creation of any aspect of individuals (other than His thoughts and plans for you–His knowledge) prior to the womb.

As for other Biblical passages, references to sin or lack thereof at conception refer to Original Sin, which as zro x pointed out, is something that applies to our physical bodies first, because it is transmitted by generation from Adam and Eve. The Church opposes Traducianism, which suggests that the parents generate a soul. Since the Church teaches otherwise (God creates the soul, not the parents), transmission of Original Sin is done biologically, and only stains the soul because the soul is infused into the body (Baptism, obviously, removes the stain on the soul, but not the fallen condition of the body).

So sin (as in David’s Psalm, “I was a sinner from the moment of my conception”) or lack thereof (as in the Immaculate Conception) does not help us determine the point of ensoulment. That sin is Original Sin, which is biologically-transmitted through generation from the parents (which is solely biological).

That John leapt in Elizabeth’s womb at the Visitation is sure evidence that ensoulment occurred by that time (I forget whether Elizabeth was 3 months along or 6 months along by that time), and actually is probably evidence that Jesus in Mary’s womb was ensouled by that time, assuming he follows the standard human pattern (which I think is a safe assumption). I don’t think Mary was very far into her pregnancy at all by the time she got to Elizabeth.

It seems to me that there are three main points, very early on, that could be candidates for ensoulment, each with their own drawbacks:

1. When the “vessel is ready” – when the embryo has reached a certain stage of development, posited by Aquinas, I think, either at 40/80 days (which may be based on the ability to identify sex organ differentiation in miscarried children–presumably a sign of identity), or at the time when the nervous system begins to develop. The greatest weakness of this approach is that it becomes vulnerable to attacks on grounds of physical capability/function.
2. At the point of implantation/pregnancy. There seems to be no major change to the individual developing embryo at this point, but it does connect with its mother and begin to effect changes in her, while also finding a “home” in the shelter of the womb. There are analogies for and against this timing, but one major merit is that it would avoid the problem of high rates of embryo loss prior to implantation.
3. At the point of fertilization. This would match the distinct start of individual biological life with the distinct creation and infusion of the soul. That’s a very powerful suggestion. However, it risks cheapening human life because of the high rate of embryo loss (i.e., more than half of humans are never born). If this is when God chooses to infuse the soul, He must either have a great plan and great mercy for the fact that more than half the human race never sees the light of day, or perhaps in His perfect foreknowledge, He refrains from infusing souls in those embryos that He knows will not naturally implant and progress.

Currently, I hold to the last view as the most likely and, in my weak human perception, the most just, though there are some difficulties to that view, as well.

 

[zro_x]

zro x, I think I’m on the same page with you.

Maso, Jeremiah 1:5 is simple, yes. God “knew.” He had plans. He knew what He was going to do. He even knows what you are going to do. Jeremiah 1:5 proves:

1. God’s perfect foreknowledge;
2. God has specific plans and intentions for individuals; and
3. God forms people in the womb.

Notice that the only language that speaks about God creating anything has to do with in the womb, not before. Before the womb, it’s knowledge of. In the womb, there is forming being done. Nothing in Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of God doing any creation of any aspect of individuals (other than His thoughts and plans for you–His knowledge) prior to the womb.

As for other Biblical passages, references to sin or lack thereof at conception refer to Original Sin, which as zro x pointed out, is something that applies to our physical bodies first, because it is transmitted by generation from Adam and Eve. The Church opposes Traducianism, which suggests that the parents generate a soul. Since the Church teaches otherwise (God creates the soul, not the parents), transmission of Original Sin is done biologically, and only stains the soul because the soul is infused into the body (Baptism, obviously, removes the stain on the soul, but not the fallen condition of the body).

So sin (as in David’s Psalm, “I was a sinner from the moment of my conception”) or lack thereof (as in the Immaculate Conception) does not help us determine the point of ensoulment. That sin is Original Sin, which is biologically-transmitted through generation from the parents (which is solely biological).

That John leapt in Elizabeth’s womb at the Visitation is sure evidence that ensoulment occurred by that time (I forget whether Elizabeth was 3 months along or 6 months along by that time), and actually is probably evidence that Jesus in Mary’s womb was ensouled by that time, assuming he follows the standard human pattern (which I think is a safe assumption). I don’t think Mary was very far into her pregnancy at all by the time she got to Elizabeth.

Elizabeth was six months along by that point.

Is it possible that John leapt in the womb for Mary, rather than Jesus?

It seems to me that there are three main points, very early on, that could be candidates for ensoulment, each with their own drawbacks:

1. When the “vessel is ready” – when the embryo has reached a certain stage of development, posited by Aquinas, I think, either at 40/80 days (which may be based on the ability to identify sex organ differentiation in miscarried children–presumably a sign of identity), or at the time when the nervous system begins to develop. The greatest weakness of this approach is that it becomes vulnerable to attacks on grounds of physical capability/function.

1. At the point of implantation/pregnancy. There seems to be no major change to the individual developing embryo at this point, but it does connect with its mother and begin to effect changes in her, while also finding a “home” in the shelter of the womb. There are analogies for and against this timing, but one major merit is that it would avoid the problem of high rates of embryo loss prior to implantation.

1. At the point of fertilization. This would match the distinct start of individual biological life with the distinct creation and infusion of the soul. That’s a very powerful suggestion. However, it risks cheapening human life because of the high rate of embryo loss (i.e., more than half of humans are never born).

I was not aware of this statistic. to take this one step further, It would seem that since the church has no official teaching on the eternal destination of babies born without baptism, then if life begins at conception, more than half of humanity is unaccounted for…

If this is when God chooses to infuse the soul, He must either have a great plan and great mercy for the fact that more than half the human race never sees the light of day, or perhaps in His perfect foreknowledge, He refrains from infusing souls in those embryos that He knows will not naturally implant and progress.

Currently, I hold to the last view as the most likely and, in my weak human perception, the most just, though there are some difficulties to that view, as well.

I think you’ve pretty much summed up my own view, Arandur, though I would add one thing. It may be more probable that God would infuse a soul during some biologically significant event, like the ones you listed, but it is not necessarily the case. There are many spiritually significant events (Baptism, Confirmation, etc.) that happen at biologically insignificant times.

 

[myelin]

Hold on…not so fast !. ( a great topic, this is new to myself

In the identical twin outcome which is what I think we are talking about,

it still seems to me that ensoulment takes place at conception.

now what about when it splits in the given mysterious way? you guys agree it is mysterious ?

so

if it is mysterious something is taking place that man even with a camera has zero explanation for…correct?..check.

so

we need an answer which address’s and is in nature with what is seen…(check.

so

answering the question with supposedly sequence’s which are in keeping with whats expected in deduction is off course and won’t do…check.

we need something which fits in philosophically with what is seen or it will not do.

so

we need to guess and it cannot be something usual.

so

heres my guess after you guys got me going on this ( thanks I really like this challenge idea

I say for now…

the fertilized egg goes up the tube and in the very brief time , has soul yes…because conception has taken place…

reach’s perfection.

yes

perfection, and because it is in time & life…it automatically reproduce’s the perfection in unity
reflecting guess what?

the event itself ( which caused its becoming

once this happens…

it cannot do anything but reproduce

split… bang

another in time

and then God swiftly imparts another soul !!!

( ok so its only been a day or so and usually I like to take longer on a great wonder…wanted to get it down…could change my mind. For some reason I really like the idea of the topic and have been looking at clips…I’m not a science guy…( arts)

.

 

[Maso]

Maso, Jeremiah 1:5 is simple, yes. God “knew.” He had plans. He knew what He was going to do. He even knows what you are going to do. Jeremiah 1:5 proves:

He also “knew” or knows the part of us that outlives our disease ridden and over burdened bodies, and that my friend is our… ( get this…) SOUL…!!!

“Soul”… a vague and difficult term to define, and yet it is the only truly real thing that we are inherantly confronted with. We do not "have’ a soul, we ARE a soul and God knows us. Believe it…!

Simple, really, why make it complicated…?

Do this… turn out the lights. Close your eyes… shut off your mind. forget about what you’re thinking for a minute… ignore the whole world. Die if you want to or at least imagine that you died… Now, ask yourself…‘what’s that immediate and undeniable thing that you have left’…? I think you’ll have a certain “brain fart” that will tell you what I’m talking about. And while you’re there… please, put in a good word for me, I need it too…

(((pthhh…ttt…)))

 

[myelin]

He also “knew” or knows the part of us that outlives our disease ridden and over burdened bodies, and that my friend is our… ( get this…) SOUL…!!!

“Soul”… a vague and difficult term to define, and yet it is the only truly real thing that we are inherantly confronted with. We do not "have’ a soul, we ARE a soul and God knows us. Believe it…!

Simple, really, why make it complicated…?

Do this… turn out the lights. Close your eyes… shut off your mind. forget about what you’re thinking for a minute… ignore the whole world. Die if you want to or at least imagine that you died… Now, ask yourself…‘what’s that immediate and undeniable thing that you have left’…? I think you’ll have a certain “brain fart” that will tell you what I’m talking about. And while you’re there… please, put in a good word for me, I need it too…

(((pthhh…ttt…)))

thats way better then my dumb kick at the cat…-no doubt about it. As soon as I woke up this morning I knew my answer needs more science knowledge. As it is your idea looks good . ( logged in to make sure my thinking gets tossed into the bin. Its a great subject to check out and hassle free.Gotta fly.

 

[Arandur]

He also “knew” or knows the part of us that outlives our disease ridden and over burdened bodies, and that my friend is our… ( get this…) SOUL…!!!

“Soul”… a vague and difficult term to define, and yet it is the only truly real thing that we are inherantly confronted with. We do not "have’ a soul, we ARE a soul and God knows us. Believe it…!

Simple, really, why make it complicated…?

Do this… turn out the lights. Close your eyes… shut off your mind. forget about what you’re thinking for a minute… ignore the whole world. Die if you want to or at least imagine that you died… Now, ask yourself…‘what’s that immediate and undeniable thing that you have left’…? I think you’ll have a certain “brain fart” that will tell you what I’m talking about. And while you’re there… please, put in a good word for me, I need it too…

(((pthhh…ttt…)))

How am I making it complicated?

I’m not disagreeing with you about the nature of the soul. I’m just pointing out that your reading of Jeremiah 1:5 is not the only explanation, and to even say that it means that God pre-created our souls is an interpolation; it is not in the text, not explicit at all.

I gave you the traditional interpretation of that passage (as I understand it) from the earliest times. There have been competing ideas, yes, but the point about it being God’s foreknowledge, not fore-creation, has been consistently held.

So yes, there are several logical possibilities for when the soul is created, but the Scriptures don’t explicitly state it; your passages are far from explicit, and have more often through the Church’s history been taken as indicating God’s foreknowledge and Plan.

I diverted the topic to also discuss the point of ensoulment, uniting the soul with the human body, because if God creates our souls at the same time that He unites it with our bodies, “when the soul is created” would also depend on when it is ensouled.

I should note, too, that the point of ensoulment is relevant even for your position of a soul pre-created, before the human body, because at some point it has to be united with the body.

Elizabeth was six months along by that point.

Is it possible that John leapt in the womb for Mary, rather than Jesus?

I think it is pretty specific that John leapt for Jesus. Which means not only was John able to recognize Jesus, but that Jesus was spiritually recognizable by that point. Which narrows the window down to a week or so–however far along Jesus was in Mary’s womb by the time of the Visitation. Which I think means that ensoulment must at least be sometime between fertilization and implantation.

I was not aware of this statistic. to take this one step further, It would seem that since the church has no official teaching on the eternal destination of babies born without baptism, then if life begins at conception, more than half of humanity is unaccounted for…

That’s a possibility, yes. I lean towards the likelihood that God, in His perfect foreknowledge, knows what embryos are “successfully fertilized” (are not chimeras, blighted ova, or otherwise suffering from improperly-combined DNA to the point where they are not naturally-viable human organisms and thus will not implant in the uterus), and also knows which of those will not naturally implant regardless of their health.

Therefore, He may well only create souls for those who will naturally progress. This would mean that “embryo loss” is not really a problem.

Granted, this does raise other questions, and a possible counterargument that God would then not create souls for any child that He knew would die before birth. But I don’t think that would be true, and I think it’s not a necessary conclusion at all.

We do know that God allows us to die of natural causes, even in infancy, childbirth, and miscarriage. But even in a miscarriage, that baby had a chance to be known, received with love, mourned, hoped for, prayed for. That makes that baby a part of the human community, impacting lives. We really don’t know when embryos lost before implantation are really lost–we usually can’t detect that anything happened. So I’m still inclined to think that the failure of nature (“natural evil”) in embryo loss is different than in miscarriage of a pregnancy (pregnancy = after implanted embryo).

This view would say that God did create the human soul and unite that with the body at fertilization for those embryos that do implant and grow. For those embryos that were naturally lost, He did not (knowing that something went or would go “wrong”).

Since we cannot know the difference, and since we must always respect God’s creation and the special dignity of the human person, and the destiny of each human organism at whatever stage of development, we must still treat all embryos the same and avoid any risk of doing harm to them.

God allows natural evil to occur, but does not hold us responsible for it (save in Original Sin); He takes responsibility over the effects of natural evil. But God also allows moral evil to occur, not preventing us from harming each other. So God’s foreknowledge would not mean that He would refrain from creating a soul for those children He knew would be aborted. Instead, as with any murder victim, He would receive them into His arms and make up for the evil man inflicted with His greater good and mercy.