Twins...
#1
OK not fraternal but identical.


Two souls or one?


It occured to me some time back that the soul is infused at conception, therefore my family friends that are twins are really the same person with different experiences.

So the soul is of the same essence but physically separated, pretty cool.  I don't know if anyone of import has ever touched on it but I doubt they'd be able to sell me another box of goods on this one.

This explains some twin phenomena.


Besides I like the idea.
Reply
#2
I think it was originally one soul, but it split with the body. It might explain the connection identical twins often share.
Reply
#3
Somewhere on here there's a thread I started on exactly this subject.

I like the "shared soul" idea, but that's rather hard luck on the decent person with an "evil" twin. Although ... maybe he has control over his twin and just refuses to exert it ... hmmm.
Reply
#4
At the moment of conception, yes, there is one soul, since there is one unique (human) life.

It is via so-called 'Embryo splitting' by which a cell will 'break off' from the human organism, and itself will develop into a distinct (human) organism, i.e.: an identical twin. Basically, there's one soul to begin with - before the splitting. After the splitting, the 'original' organism (from which the cell split off) continues in its unique existence (with a unique soul). The split-off cell, which from the instant of split becomes an individual human organism in itself, has another (unique soul). There's not 'one soul' for 'two people'. A soul is the principle of life for a thing, and by definition, is only associated with the one organism (of which it is the principle of life).

Reply
#5
(06-06-2009, 08:49 AM)Lagrange Wrote: At the moment of conception, yes, there is one soul, since there is one unique (human) life.

It is via so-called 'Embryo splitting' by which a cell will 'break off' from the human organism, and itself will develop into a distinct (human) organism, i.e.: an identical twin. Basically, there's one soul to begin with - before the splitting. After the splitting, the 'original' organism (from which the cell split off) continues in its unique existence (with a unique soul). The split-off cell, which from the instant of split becomes an individual human organism in itself, has another (unique soul). There's not 'one soul' for 'two people'. A soul is the principle of life for a thing, and by definition, is only associated with the one organism (of which it is the principle of life).

You're right, but the shared soul idea is so much more fun.
Reply
#6
(06-06-2009, 08:50 AM)Satori Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 08:49 AM)Lagrange Wrote: At the moment of conception, yes, there is one soul, since there is one unique (human) life.

It is via so-called 'Embryo splitting' by which a cell will 'break off' from the human organism, and itself will develop into a distinct (human) organism, i.e.: an identical twin. Basically, there's one soul to begin with - before the splitting. After the splitting, the 'original' organism (from which the cell split off) continues in its unique existence (with a unique soul). The split-off cell, which from the instant of split becomes an individual human organism in itself, has another (unique soul). There's not 'one soul' for 'two people'. A soul is the principle of life for a thing, and by definition, is only associated with the one organism (of which it is the principle of life).

You're right, but the shared soul idea is so much more fun.

His idea is in no way a rebuttal of the one substance idea.  Since the bodies share all the same substance as far as information building blocks go they are for all practical purposes, the same.  The soul being of the same substance in the original is now nothing more that two instances of the same thing.  I'm not even sure they're fully separated since a soul has no form.

And no amount of wordiness, explaining zygotes and mitosis changes this.


Glad you had the same idea.
Reply
#7
We got no revelation about it, but the most probable opinion is that the immortal soul is created when the body is ready to be united with it.

Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

(06-06-2009, 02:21 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: OK not fraternal but identical.


Two souls or one?


It occured to me some time back that the soul is infused at conception, therefore my family friends that are twins are really the same person with different experiences.

So the soul is of the same essence but physically separated, pretty cool.  I don't know if anyone of import has ever touched on it but I doubt they'd be able to sell me another box of goods on this one.

This explains some twin phenomena.


Besides I like the idea.
Reply
#8
(06-06-2009, 08:50 AM)Satori Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 08:49 AM)Lagrange Wrote: At the moment of conception, yes, there is one soul, since there is one unique (human) life.

It is via so-called 'Embryo splitting' by which a cell will 'break off' from the human organism, and itself will develop into a distinct (human) organism, i.e.: an identical twin. Basically, there's one soul to begin with - before the splitting. After the splitting, the 'original' organism (from which the cell split off) continues in its unique existence (with a unique soul). The split-off cell, which from the instant of split becomes an individual human organism in itself, has another (unique soul). There's not 'one soul' for 'two people'. A soul is the principle of life for a thing, and by definition, is only associated with the one organism (of which it is the principle of life).

You're right, but the shared soul idea is so much more fun.

Definitely, who doesn't like the groovy concept of sharing a soul  ;D

But since this is in the "Theological Debate'' forum, I decided to go beyond grooviness, however funky that may be...

(06-06-2009, 09:08 AM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 08:50 AM)Satori Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 08:49 AM)Lagrange Wrote: At the moment of conception, yes, there is one soul, since there is one unique (human) life.

It is via so-called 'Embryo splitting' by which a cell will 'break off' from the human organism, and itself will develop into a distinct (human) organism, i.e.: an identical twin. Basically, there's one soul to begin with - before the splitting. After the splitting, the 'original' organism (from which the cell split off) continues in its unique existence (with a unique soul). The split-off cell, which from the instant of split becomes an individual human organism in itself, has another (unique soul). There's not 'one soul' for 'two people'. A soul is the principle of life for a thing, and by definition, is only associated with the one organism (of which it is the principle of life).

You're right, but the shared soul idea is so much more fun.

His idea is in no way a rebuttal of the one substance idea.  Since the bodies share all the same substance as far as information building blocks go they are for all practical purposes, the same.   The soul being of the same substance in the original is now nothing more that two instances of the same thing.  I'm not even sure they're fully separated since a soul has no form.

And no amount of wordiness, explaining zygotes and mitosis changes this.


Glad you had the same idea.

That's really simply the same way as saying a child is genetically pre-disposed to the certain traits of the mother or father. Maybe just a bit more.
Reply
#9
Not at all.
Reply
#10
I think we're partly getting caught up in different usages of different terms in this discussion.

By the way, in my opinion, this whole topic rather fascinating. For a more detailed analysis, here's something people may want to look into (although I don't think it's available online unless you have special access via a college/university etc).

  Koch-Hershenov, Rose(2006)'Totipotency, Twinning, and Ensoulment at Fertilization',Journal of Medicine and
Philosophy,31:2,139 — 164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03605310600588673

That's not the first piece where I first 'read into' the issue a month or two back, but it still looks good...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)