[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

There are within Christian tradition (Roman, Protestant, Orthodox) three views of the origin of the individual soul.

FIRST: Preexistence. This view as taught by Origen, maintains that souls of mankind had a conscious state in some sort of previous state. This condemns them to be born into bodies in this life. (almost sounds like reincarnation)

SECOND: Traducianism. This view teaches that the soul is generated by the two parents in the same manner as the physical charistics of the individual.

THIRD: Creationism. This is the majourity view of all of the churches. Creationism is the view that the soul is created by the direct and immediate agency of God, and is infused into the person at conception.

Of those three views, i personally favour Traducianism, as it avoids a messy problem of Creationism, namely if the soul is created by immediate agency of God, and is indued with original sin, QED, God is the source of sin! By a traducian understanding, a soul corrupted by original sin is the responsibility of the parents who were also corrupted by original sin. It also explains better the Incarnation, if Jesus had no human father, he could not have had a human soul corrupted by sin.

This leads back to the issue of the clone. If there are not two zygotes (egg and sperm) is there a soul? i think not. i fear the thought of human clones. Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person. Since cloning does not necessarily require a fertilised embryo, one should be afraid, very afraid.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Source: Hodge, Charles Systematic Theology, Vol II

There has been enough plagerising recently :-)

[Technogeeb]

Of those three views, i personally favour Traducianism

That does seem the most logical view.

This leads back to the issue of the clone. If there are not two zygotes (egg and sperm) is there a soul? i think not

But that was the point of my earlier post. There ARE both egg and sperm, at least with all the techniques I have studied (granted, I haven't looked at the research in several years, and if another process has been developed I would be equally concerned about the soul issue). The process involves replacing the DNA of a previously fertilized egg with the DNA of some other individual (the target to be cloned). Thus, the conception event that has created the soul has already happened.

Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person

Hmm. I think somebody needs to inform the FDA of an illegal cloning operation in Hope, Arkansas.

Since cloning does not necessarily require a fertilised embryo

Are you certain of this? (Not to question your facts; I simply haven't looked at the research in several years. Do you have any links to mammal cloning that doesn't require pre-fertilization of the cell? Or are you just assuming future technical progress?).

[Dr Warmoose]

This leads back to the issue of the clone. If there are not two zygotes (egg and sperm) is there a soul? i think not. i fear the thought of human clones. Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person. Since cloning does not necessarily require a fertilised embryo, one should be afraid, very afraid.

AntiChrist is clone model 666?

The greek allows this kind of reading... and the prophetical requirements can all be met (provided one's eschatology was pre-mil). Recovering from a head-wound would simply mean regrowing from stem-cell. Because of DNA corruption, the clone rapidly resembles the age of the source cell, so one can have the illusion of age by starting with an older donor.

Now we know that Satan is the Great Deceiver, and the AC is supposed to deceive the world...

Should stop. Sounding like an Art Bell replacement.

[drstevej]

***Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person.***

Is your reference to Bill or Hillary?