The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Two souls for one person?

Two souls for one person?<br><br>Yesterday, I learned about something that I had always thought was impossible. There have been well documented cases of people made up of two distinct sets of genetic information. That is, when genetic tests are done on different organ systems in the same person, the test will show that the organs came from different people. <br><br>Please see these links: <br>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content-tweek/full/346/20/1509-d<br>http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/yunis.pdf<br>http://organtx.org/chim.htm<br><br>People like this came from two fertilized eggs that fused in the womb. The question is, do people like this have two souls?<br>

Smithca,<br><br>I don't think you can measure a soul by body chemistries. Our DNA is a reading of body chemistries which identifies us physically. However I received a kidney transplant 7 years ago and its DNA will always be identified with the individual who gave it to me. One of the reasons transplant patients have to take immunosuppressant drugs is for this very reason. Since it is foreign to my body my immune system will attack it if it is not suppressed and my body will reject it.<br><br>I've received so many blood transfusions after surgeries over the years I've lost count but it hasn't changed who I am nor added any souls to my system. At least none that I'm aware of. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>The dictionary describes soul as: <br> <br>1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity. <br><br>2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state. <br><br>3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human. <br><br>None of which can be measured chemically.<br><br><br>Wes

Sorry I kept the question so short, let me elaborate. This question explores the issues with conception, and souls and can even extend to the moral issues of abortion. So to pose the question in another way:<br>1) If a soul is part of a person at conception.<br>2) If this woman is the product of two fertilized eggs, as is the only explanation for the facts.<br>3) Then does she have the two souls from her two original fertilized eggs, or if she does not, what happened to the second soul? Or does a fertilized egg have no soul and a soul is assigned to a developing person some time after conception?<br>Your personal situation as you describe it does not apply to this example because you are the product of one fertilized egg and getting transfusions and transplants later in life does not change that. <br><br>I am sorry that the question is so outrageous on the face of it. This is just a conundrum that can produce enlightening insights when you try to explain it.<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]1) If a soul is part of a person at conception.</font><hr></blockquote><p>This is something which is assumed and needs to be proven true. I am going to assume that you or whoever has posited this assumption holds to "Traducianism?<blockquote>TRADUCIANISM: According to Traducianism the souls of men are propagated along with the bodies by generation, and are therefore transmitted to the children by the parents. (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 197)</blockquote>Personally, I find little merit in Traducianism or biblical warrant. I much prefer and do hold to "Creationism"<blockquote>CREATIONISM: This view is to the effect that each individual soul is to be regarded as an immediate creation of God, owing its origin to a direct creative act, of which the time cannot be precisely determined. (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 199)</blockquote>It must be admitted that each view has its own set of problems. But in my estimation, the latter is more easily established biblically and presents fewer problems than the former.<br><br>Thus, if one accepts the Creationist view, your question becomes a moot issue since there is no direct inherent relationship or dependency of the soul to the body at conception. In short.... actually considering either view, the soul does not originate from the physical properties of a human being. Therefore a human being cannot possess "two souls". [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Personally, I never considered the origin of souls, but if I had to be pinned down, I would be the latter also. As this relates to the morality of abortion, if a fertilized egg does not have a soul, is it wrong to kill one?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As this relates to the morality of abortion, if a fertilized egg does not have a soul, is it wrong to kill one?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Are you assuming that a fertilized egg does not have a soul? If so, on what basis? Both Traducianism and Creationism believe that the soul is existent at conception. Since I believe that the soul is joined to the body at the very moment of conception, then abortion is unequivocally immoral; aka: murder. And just to add one more thought..... taking your question at face value, "if a fertilized egg does not have a soul, is it wrong to kill one?", I would submit that if a fertilized egg has no soul than it is not alive and thus cannot be killed. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Then we are back to my original question. This woman is the product of two fertilized eggs. Therefore, two souls. What happened to the extra soul if she only has one?

Here's an idea: What if one of the fertilized eggs died? That pretty much takes care of it.

It is true that if one of the eggs died, it would take care of the problem, however that does not fit the facts as known. You see, her genetic makeup is that of two distinct individuals with some organ systems of one and others of the other. If one of the eggs died, then it would not have contributed to her final state. In fact, if one of the eggs died, we wouldn't have the conundrum because she would only have the genetic makeup of one individual and be just like the rest of us.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Then we are back to my original question. This woman is the product of two fertilized eggs. Therefore, two souls. What happened to the extra soul if she only has one?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Again, hehehe..... you are assuming that there are "two souls" because of the two fertilized eggs. But with all speculation aside, I am confident that the creation of the soul is not an "automated" occurrence, but is rather the result of God's providence. Since I hold that God has foreordained all things, then each INDIVIDUAL has, from eternity, been foreknown by God in every detail, not excluding the joining of that person's unique soul to the body. Since this woman is but one individual, she has but one soul. If two fertilized eggs were somehow joined, then the two became one and perhaps that will suffice, even if you don't embrace the biblical doctrine of God's eternal decree? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]You see, her genetic makeup is that of two distinct individuals with some organ systems of one and others of the other. If one of the eggs died, then it would not have contributed to her final state. In fact, if one of the eggs died, we wouldn't have the conundrum because she would only have the genetic makeup of one individual and be just like the rest of us.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Me again! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] I think your conundrum is due to a definition of terms? You state that this woman is "two distinct individuals". Well, this is impossible as a human being IS an "individual", i.e., one, singular person. And God has designed, assigned and created one singular soul for each person, who will have to give an account before Him on that last day. This woman could have organs from 10 different eggs, but it doesn't change the fact that she is still one INDIVIDUAL with one specially created soul. Does that help? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Perhaps each fertilized egg had only half a soul? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/tongue.gif" alt="tongue" title="tongue[/img]<br><br>But does it really matter? I mean, I realize that you're thinking of the implications this might have on the morality of abortion, but since we can only speculate exactly how each person is imbued with a soul, it becomes a sort of moot point. We know that God provides the soul, but we don't know exactly how, and "when" may very well differ from person to person, dependent upon God's will. It would be presumptuous of us to say that, well, this fertilized egg has no soul, and we may therefore destroy it with a clear conscience.

I am really sorry, but we do not seem to be communicating the basic question. I am NOT saying that she is two individuals, I am saying that she is one individual person with the genetic makeup of two individuals. I am saying that she started as two individual fertilized eggs and grew into one person. So if each fertilized egg had a soul, what happened to the extra soul if she only has one today. <br><br>If she started from 10 fertilized eggs, that only compounds the problem because then the question would have to be what happened to the other 9 souls.

What is the proof that she has characteristics from both eggs? The articles you posted were awfully complex, and I didn't see any explanation as to how they knew that both eggs produced one person. I'm a bit skeptical as to how they have reached these conclusions.

I can say that she does not have two souls because that could not fit into the Biblical framework.

Romans 3:3-4 "What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar."