I believe that the bible supports that interpretation.
Yes, which was my point.
Difficult - yes indeed for those of us with finite minds and not that of God. This directly answers why there is a need for scriptures. General revelation will not give us God's more specific insight on these items james.
Can you as an atheist call the clone human? Or do you consider it to be an artificial construct to be done with as you see fit? On what basis do you make your decision?
However, in the case of cloning, it is artificially induced. Would it then not mean that the deity - God - is forced by human intervention to create a "new soul" for the clone, purely due to the whims of Man?
Humans are created normally by the 'whims of man' james - or are you announcing that you were begotten in a different manner? Your version of God may feel 'forced', I don't think man can force God to do anything outside of his will. It was his will that humans have a soul and spirit, and that this clone (twin) is every bit human - just split off at a much later time.
But this raises an interesting point - how can you claim to know that God would be 'forced' to do anything james - since you reject the very existence of God to begin with. Upon what do you found the basis of your statement?
This is something neither you, nor I will be able to answer with confidence. I will ask you this, would conducting research on unfertilised eggs and unfertilised sperm, separately, be unethical? Clones are produced from one of the former, combined with the DNA from another body cell, by-passing the natural mode of fertilisation through the union of the gametes. It's a tough question, because if human cloning is executed, it would pose the problem of defining what the rights of the clone would be. As a believer in the Golden Rule (do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you) as the source of all morality, I would have to empathise with the feelings of this sentient clone and grant him or her the rights I myself enjoy.
Humans are created normally by the 'whims of man' James - or are you announcing that you were begotten in a different manner? Your version of God may feel 'forced', I don't think man can force God to do anything outside of His will.
I am talking about a clone, Godzilla. One created by scientists out of body cells.
It was his will that humans have a soul and spirit, and that this clone (twin) is every bit human - just split off at a much later time.
Yet, the clone is a separate individual from the source, is it not? The source (with its "soul") and the clone cannot possibly share the same "soul", correct? The clone needs a "new soul" to be introduced into it. Since the creation of the clone is itself a product of the whims of Man, this deity of yours (God) is thus forced to intervene and create a "new soul" for the clone.
But this raises an interesting point - how can you claim to know that God would be 'forced' to do anything James - since you reject the very existence of God to begin with. Upon what do you found the basis of your statement?
I really am perplexed why you ask this. I don't know what was lost in the translation, but if it has escaped you, my way of showing why I find belief in supernatural entities to be irrational is by admitting for the sake of argument the existence of the said entity, temporarily, and then bringing about a real, undeniable absurdity that results from its characteristics. I did this with the isolated tribal example, with the deity-outside-time-ordering-sequential-events example, and here, with the clone example. I hope I have clarified your doubts.
To make the problem more interesting, clones are not merely twins. If the genetics is tampered with (we do it today, with bacteria, whose genome is spliced with human DNA to produce synthetic human insulin), then the clone is no more a twin. Would such an entity have a “soul”?
I’ll return after a while here, to see if there are any fruitful replies. Thanks in advance.