Does a Clone Have a Soul and Spirit?

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Consider this Tristen, and I am interested in your opinion. I do not have the answers, but I believe it is critical in the definition of what a human soul and spirit is, pertaining to qualifications for redemption and Salvation. God breathed the breath of life into humanity, can it be lost?

In Genesis the Bible is clear, each “kind” in the animal kingdom has both a soul and spirit suited for their kind. Kinds not to be confused with species of kinds.

The topic of DNA additions, removal, splicing (genetic trans-humanism) is no longer even debatable. As closely as human DNA is to the animal kingdom, the main question is, what does it mean to be 100% human. How much and what DNA manipulation before we cease to be human?

Chimps are 97% human according to DNA.

9 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

The soul and spirit of say a dog, is instinctive, it has no reasoning, critical thinking, or higher creativity.

As the owner of six dogs of two different breeds I can tell you your statement is false. On cannot know this unless one is close, really close to their dogs. I have anecdotal, eye witness accounts (by me) that prove otherwise.

9 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

As with the announced creation of genetically modified super-soldiers (trans-humanism), what does that entail? To be as strong as an ox, see like an eagle, hear like an owl, need less food and sleep, and so forth. Where and how will they draw these characteristics from to create superman?

If we are not as created, what are we, a genetically modified hybrid. If a human has modified DNA resulting in some of their attributes and abilities, it stands to reason part of their spirit and soul is also inherited.

Whereas, the tampering with cloning and designer babies are not crossing the kind barrier. It says we humans can do better than what God gives us, we are not satisfied, we can be our own little gods.

Just the thoughts of an old man with too much time on his hands…

The purpose ultimately are focused on creating super soldiers, IMO.

[Tristen]

12 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Consider this Tristen, and I am interested in your opinion. I do not have the answers, but I believe it is critical in the definition of what a human soul and spirit is, pertaining to qualifications for redemption and Salvation. God breathed the breath of life into humanity, can it be lost?

In Genesis the Bible is clear, each “kind” in the animal kingdom has both a soul and spirit suited for their kind. Kinds not to be confused with species of kinds.

The topic of DNA additions, removal, splicing (genetic transhumanism) is no longer even debatable. As closely as human DNA is to the animal kingdom, the main question is, what does it mean to be 100% human. How much and what DNA manipulation before we cease to be human?

The soul and spirit of say a dog, is instinctive, it has no reasoning, critical thinking, or higher creativity.

As with the announced creation of genetically modified super-soldiers (transhumanism), what does that entail? To be as strong as an ox, see like an eagle, hear like an owl, need less food and sleep, and so forth. Where and how will they draw these characteristics from to create superman?

If we are not as created, what are we, a genetically modified hybrid. If a human has modified DNA resulting in some of their attributes and abilities, it stands to reason part of their spirit and soul is also inherited.

Whereas, the tampering with cloning and designer babies are not crossing the kind barrier. It says we humans can do better than what God gives us, we are not satisfied, we can be our own little gods.

Just the thoughts of an old man with too much time on his hands…

 

Hi Dennis,

“Consider this Tristen, and I am interested in your opinion. I do not have the answers, but I believe it is critical in the definition of what a human soul and spirit is, pertaining to qualifications for redemption and Salvation. God breathed the breath of life into humanity, can it be lost?”

I think it’s an interesting question. I also “do not have the answers”, but I have some ideas.

I suspect the concept of us being born “in Adam” might speak to the fact that we inherited our life/spirit directly from Adam. That would entail that part of us was indeed “in Adam” when he made the choice to steal the fruit from God’s tree. That is, our spirit was actually in the garden as part of Adam, contributing to that decision. The accountability for that decision is therefore shared across humanity.

Thankfully, we now have the opportunity to transfer that accountability, and be found “in Christ”.

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

The spirit is therefore in one of two possible states; “in Adam” (corrupted and disconnect from the life of God), or “in Christ” (renewed and connected to the life of God through Christ)

I understand the “soul” to be the invisible part of us that buds from the spirit; essentially, the part of our spirit that is unique to the individual.

 

“In Genesis the Bible is clear, each “kind” in the animal kingdom has both a soul and spirit suited for their kind”

I’m not familiar with where this is claimed. I do think it is important to recognize the critical distinction; that God is only recorded to have “breathed” His own life into humans (Gen 2:7), and not animals.

 

“Kinds not to be confused with species of kinds.”

I am familiar with the concept of “kinds” – a “kind” representing a grouping that is related back to their shared, created ancestors (and for some, subsequently bottlenecked through the flood).

 

“The topic of DNA additions, removal, splicing (genetic transhumanism) is no longer even debatable”

In terms of what can actually be achieved, I think this is a more practically complicated topic than what your statement here indicates.

 

“As closely as human DNA is to the animal kingdom, the main question is, what does it mean to be 100% human. How much and what DNA manipulation before we cease to be human?”

My first comment is a point of semantics. The term “kingdom” is a marker defining a particular level in a particular classification system. All classification systems are subjective – meaning, they are just the way we have decided to group things together (and don’t actually represent some ultimate truth). In this particular system (the Linnean system), humans are animals (Primates; in the "animal kingdom").

I would secondly disagree that human DNA is all that “close” to animals. I’ve seen percentage estimates between chimps and humans ranging between ~80% and 99% DNA similarity. Given that the human genome is roughly 3 thousand-million bases, even a 1% difference represents a 30 million base difference. Though, even in this era of rampant whole genome sequencing, I have yet to see a direct base-for-base comparison. The studies I've read only take the portion of DNA that is likely to line up anyways – generating a bias towards similarity.

In 2010, a paper compared the Y-chromosome between chimps and humans “and found that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content” (Hughes et al, 2010, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content”, Nature, Vol. 463, p. 536-539.). So, we can see why they might be reluctant to do a full genome comparison using current technology.

I personally don’t think any of these percentage claims make much sense anyway. Arbitrary choices have to be made about what qualifies as a difference or similarity. E.g. What if one species has only one copy of a gene, but the other species has multiple copies of the same gene – is that a similarity, or a difference? What if the same gene is on a different chromosome in both species (or even in a different position on the same chromosome) – does that count as a similarity or difference? What if there are different alleles for the same gene between species (e.g. both have the same hair colour gene in the same place on the genome, but the colours are different between them) – is that a difference, or a similarity? What if two very different genes perform the same function between species? Etc. etc.

 

In summary (and hopefully to answer your question), I’d say that we are a long, long, long, long, long, long, very long way away from being able to change the human genome enough to make it unrecognizable as human.

 

“The soul and spirit of say a dog, is instinctive, it has no reasoning, critical thinking, or higher creativity.”

Dogs are not made in the likeness of God, and do not have the life of God breathed into them.

It would be interesting (though probably highly unethical 😊) to see if the genetic material of one species could be implanted into the fertilized egg of a species from a different “kind”. I suspect that the structure of the fertilized egg would be too different between the "kinds" to accommodate the alien DNA.

 

“As with the announced creation of genetically modified super-soldiers (transhumanism), what does that entail? To be as strong as an ox, see like an eagle, hear like an owl, need less food and sleep, and so forth. Where and how will they draw these characteristics from to create superman?”

Similar to what @BeyondET said, I consider it to be far more plausible that “super-soldiers” would be generated using mechanical, rather than genetic, modifications. I think the media makes genetic modification of eukaryotes sound much easier than it really is in practice. Such systemic, genetic modifications would have to be realized soon after fertilization. Whereas mechanical modifications could be applied to adult volunteers; with much less investment of time and resources.

I think, if one went down the genetic route, it would be a matter of combining the best attributes that already exist in the human pan genome. I don’t think they’d have much success if they tried replacing human genes with animal (or plant, or microbial) genes.

 

“If we are not as created, what are we, a genetically modified hybrid. If a human has modified DNA resulting in some of their attributes and abilities, it stands to reason part of their spirit and soul is also inherited.”

As per my previous post, I assume that the spirit is intact at conception. I can’t conceive of how that could be undone or undermined by any subsequent physical (genetic) manipulations. Artificial genetic cloning requires a fertilized egg – they then try to remove and replace the DNA in the already-existing life. I believe it is the point of fertilization when the human becomes a life, with a spirit. I don’t see how any subsequent tweaking of the DNA could change that status.

 

“Whereas, the tampering with cloning and designer babies are not crossing the kind barrier. It says we humans can do better than what God gives us, we are not satisfied, we can be our own little gods.”

Some of it is morally dubious. Though an argument could be made that much of medicine does the same.

 

“Just the thoughts of an old man with too much time on his hands…”

Yup – same. 😊

 

[BeyondET]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

Hi Dennis,

“Consider this Tristen, and I am interested in your opinion. I do not have the answers, but I believe it is critical in the definition of what a human soul and spirit is, pertaining to qualifications for redemption and Salvation. God breathed the breath of life into humanity, can it be lost?”

I think it’s an interesting question. I also “do not have the answers”, but I have some ideas.

I suspect the concept of us being born “in Adam” might speak to the fact that we inherited our life/spirit directly from Adam. That would entail that part of us was indeed “in Adam” when he made the choice to steal the fruit from God’s tree. That is, our spirit was actually in the garden as part of Adam, contributing to that decision. The accountability for that decision is therefore shared across humanity.

Thankfully, we now have the opportunity to transfer that accountability, and be found “in Christ”.

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

The spirit is therefore in one of two possible states; “in Adam” (corrupted and disconnect from the life of God), or “in Christ” (renewed and connected to the life of God through Christ)

I understand the “soul” to be the invisible part of us that buds from the spirit; essentially, the part of our spirit that is unique to the individual.

 

“In Genesis the Bible is clear, each “kind” in the animal kingdom has both a soul and spirit suited for their kind”

I’m not familiar with where this is claimed. I do think it is important to recognize the critical distinction; that God is only recorded to have “breathed” His own life into humans (Gen 2:7), and not animals.

 

“Kinds not to be confused with species of kinds.”

I am familiar with the concept of “kinds” – a “kind” representing a grouping that is related back to their shared, created ancestors (and for some, subsequently bottlenecked through the flood).

 

“The topic of DNA additions, removal, splicing (genetic transhumanism) is no longer even debatable”

In terms of what can actually be achieved, I think this is a more practically complicated topic than what your statement here indicates.

 

“As closely as human DNA is to the animal kingdom, the main question is, what does it mean to be 100% human. How much and what DNA manipulation before we cease to be human?”

My first comment is a point of semantics. The term “kingdom” is a marker defining a particular level in a particular classification system. All classification systems are subjective – meaning, they are just the way we have decided to group things together (and don’t actually represent some ultimate truth). In this particular system (the Linnean system), humans are animals (Primates; in the "animal kingdom").

I would secondly disagree that human DNA is all that “close” to animals. I’ve seen percentage estimates between chimps and humans ranging between ~80% and 99% DNA similarity. Given that the human genome is roughly 3 thousand-million bases, even a 1% difference represents a 30 million base difference. Though, even in this era of rampant whole genome sequencing, I have yet to see a direct base-for-base comparison. The studies I've read only take the portion of DNA that is likely to line up anyways – generating a bias towards similarity.

In 2010, a paper compared the Y-chromosome between chimps and humans “and found that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content” (Hughes et al, 2010, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content”, Nature, Vol. 463, p. 536-539.). So, we can see why they might be reluctant to do a full genome comparison using current technology.

I personally don’t think any of these percentage claims make much sense anyway. Arbitrary choices have to be made about what qualifies as a difference or similarity. E.g. What if one species has only one copy of a gene, but the other species has multiple copies of the same gene – is that a similarity, or a difference? What if the same gene is on a different chromosome in both species (or even in a different position on the same chromosome) – does that count as a similarity or difference? What if there are different alleles for the same gene between species (e.g. both have the same hair colour gene in the same place on the genome, but the colours are different between them) – is that a difference, or a similarity? What if two very different genes perform the same function between species? Etc. etc.

 

In summary (and hopefully to answer your question), I’d say that we are a long, long, long, long, long, long, very long way away from being able to change the human genome enough to make it unrecognizable as human.

 

“The soul and spirit of say a dog, is instinctive, it has no reasoning, critical thinking, or higher creativity.”

Dogs are not made in the likeness of God, and do not have the life of God breathed into them.

It would be interesting (though probably highly unethical 😊) to see if the genetic material of one species could be implanted into the fertilized egg of a species from a different “kind”. I suspect that the structure of the fertilized egg would be too different between the "kinds" to accommodate the alien DNA.

 

“As with the announced creation of genetically modified super-soldiers (transhumanism), what does that entail? To be as strong as an ox, see like an eagle, hear like an owl, need less food and sleep, and so forth. Where and how will they draw these characteristics from to create superman?”

Similar to what @BeyondET said, I consider it to be far more plausible that “super-soldiers” would be generated using mechanical, rather than genetic, modifications. I think the media makes genetic modification of eukaryotes sound much easier than it really is in practice. Such systemic, genetic modifications would have to be realized soon after fertilization. Whereas mechanical modifications could be applied to adult volunteers; with much less investment of time and resources.

I think, if one went down the genetic route, it would be a matter of combining the best attributes that already exist in the human pan genome. I don’t think they’d have much success if they tried replacing human genes with animal (or plant, or microbial) genes.

 

“If we are not as created, what are we, a genetically modified hybrid. If a human has modified DNA resulting in some of their attributes and abilities, it stands to reason part of their spirit and soul is also inherited.”

As per my previous post, I assume that the spirit is intact at conception. I can’t conceive of how that could be undone or undermined by any subsequent physical (genetic) manipulations. Artificial genetic cloning requires a fertilized egg – they then try to remove and replace the DNA in the already-existing life. I believe it is the point of fertilization when the human becomes a life, with a spirit. I don’t see how any subsequent tweaking of the DNA could change that status.

 

“Whereas, the tampering with cloning and designer babies are not crossing the kind barrier. It says we humans can do better than what God gives us, we are not satisfied, we can be our own little gods.”

Some of it is morally dubious. Though an argument could be made that much of medicine does the same.

 

“Just the thoughts of an old man with too much time on his hands…”

Yup – same. 😊

 

I enjoyed the read Tristen. Ive been thinking on life,spirit,souls on earth humans hows these come about. It begins and is governed sort of through two channels, stem cell, cerebral cortex.

The blastocyst that forms around the egg the zinc spark is lined with embryo stem cells. Stem cells hold vast amounts of information it's not on a hard drive but biological. Nonetheless it is those beginning cells that gets life going, stores of info passed on from one to the other and all life is from those vast libraries, turned on and off at their due times.

The cerebral cortex has two functions, keeps heart rate digestive and immune system going all the no brainers along with the little helpers we host and that is separate from the cognitive the reasoning where the soul resides.

the basic that gives rise to the complex written out millions of years cell after cell, to the full development of the human cortex for the soul to reside in the cerebral without damaging the spirit vessel.

If that remotely made any sense, if not I apologize a head of time. 😆 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

6 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Matthew 12:18 - “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
1 Thessalonian 5:23 - Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrew - 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. [ESV]

We know Paul, a Pharisee trained Jew well knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek, speaks of soul and spirit as separate, but occupying the same body. God understood this as He explained and Matthew recorded. I expect the Jews who read this to fully understand not needing further explanation. From the Old Testament:

1 Samuel 1:15 - But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD.
Job 7:11 - “Therefore I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.
Isaiah 26:9 - My soul yearns for you in the night; my spirit within me earnestly seeks you. For when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.
Isaiah 42:1 - Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. [ESV]

The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament; a fulfillment of it. So both texts are valid when discussing soul and spirit.

Where the scriptures are silent, science fills in the gap. Because science speaks ambiguously on the subject, no consensuses can be reached. Faith and science will always be at enmity with each other.

Thanks for the read and the verses. the one below I think does show the deference in a simple faction.

Anybody who has been drunk on wine or strong drink pretty much knows the loss of body functions the part that is hard to control and the meaning seems to point to the spirit. The pouring out of her soul was what she could control reasoning.

1 Samuel 1:15 - But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD

Edited January 13, 2023 by BeyondET

[Dennis1209]

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

Hi Dennis,

“Consider this Tristen, and I am interested in your opinion. I do not have the answers, but I believe it is critical in the definition of what a human soul and spirit is, pertaining to qualifications for redemption and Salvation. God breathed the breath of life into humanity, can it be lost?”

I think it’s an interesting question. I also “do not have the answers”, but I have some ideas.

I suspect the concept of us being born “in Adam” might speak to the fact that we inherited our life/spirit directly from Adam. That would entail that part of us was indeed “in Adam” when he made the choice to steal the fruit from God’s tree. That is, our spirit was actually in the garden as part of Adam, contributing to that decision. The accountability for that decision is therefore shared across humanity.

Thankfully, we now have the opportunity to transfer that accountability, and be found “in Christ”.

Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

The spirit is therefore in one of two possible states; “in Adam” (corrupted and disconnect from the life of God), or “in Christ” (renewed and connected to the life of God through Christ)

I understand the “soul” to be the invisible part of us that buds from the spirit; essentially, the part of our spirit that is unique to the individual.

 

“In Genesis the Bible is clear, each “kind” in the animal kingdom has both a soul and spirit suited for their kind”

I’m not familiar with where this is claimed. I do think it is important to recognize the critical distinction; that God is only recorded to have “breathed” His own life into humans (Gen 2:7), and not animals.

 

“Kinds not to be confused with species of kinds.”

I am familiar with the concept of “kinds” – a “kind” representing a grouping that is related back to their shared, created ancestors (and for some, subsequently bottlenecked through the flood).

 

“The topic of DNA additions, removal, splicing (genetic transhumanism) is no longer even debatable”

In terms of what can actually be achieved, I think this is a more practically complicated topic than what your statement here indicates.

 

“As closely as human DNA is to the animal kingdom, the main question is, what does it mean to be 100% human. How much and what DNA manipulation before we cease to be human?”

My first comment is a point of semantics. The term “kingdom” is a marker defining a particular level in a particular classification system. All classification systems are subjective – meaning, they are just the way we have decided to group things together (and don’t actually represent some ultimate truth). In this particular system (the Linnean system), humans are animals (Primates; in the "animal kingdom").

I would secondly disagree that human DNA is all that “close” to animals. I’ve seen percentage estimates between chimps and humans ranging between ~80% and 99% DNA similarity. Given that the human genome is roughly 3 thousand-million bases, even a 1% difference represents a 30 million base difference. Though, even in this era of rampant whole genome sequencing, I have yet to see a direct base-for-base comparison. The studies I've read only take the portion of DNA that is likely to line up anyways – generating a bias towards similarity.

In 2010, a paper compared the Y-chromosome between chimps and humans “and found that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content” (Hughes et al, 2010, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content”, Nature, Vol. 463, p. 536-539.). So, we can see why they might be reluctant to do a full genome comparison using current technology.

I personally don’t think any of these percentage claims make much sense anyway. Arbitrary choices have to be made about what qualifies as a difference or similarity. E.g. What if one species has only one copy of a gene, but the other species has multiple copies of the same gene – is that a similarity, or a difference? What if the same gene is on a different chromosome in both species (or even in a different position on the same chromosome) – does that count as a similarity or difference? What if there are different alleles for the same gene between species (e.g. both have the same hair colour gene in the same place on the genome, but the colours are different between them) – is that a difference, or a similarity? What if two very different genes perform the same function between species? Etc. etc.

 

In summary (and hopefully to answer your question), I’d say that we are a long, long, long, long, long, long, very long way away from being able to change the human genome enough to make it unrecognizable as human.

 

“The soul and spirit of say a dog, is instinctive, it has no reasoning, critical thinking, or higher creativity.”

Dogs are not made in the likeness of God, and do not have the life of God breathed into them.

It would be interesting (though probably highly unethical 😊) to see if the genetic material of one species could be implanted into the fertilized egg of a species from a different “kind”. I suspect that the structure of the fertilized egg would be too different between the "kinds" to accommodate the alien DNA.

 

“As with the announced creation of genetically modified super-soldiers (transhumanism), what does that entail? To be as strong as an ox, see like an eagle, hear like an owl, need less food and sleep, and so forth. Where and how will they draw these characteristics from to create superman?”

Similar to what @BeyondET said, I consider it to be far more plausible that “super-soldiers” would be generated using mechanical, rather than genetic, modifications. I think the media makes genetic modification of eukaryotes sound much easier than it really is in practice. Such systemic, genetic modifications would have to be realized soon after fertilization. Whereas mechanical modifications could be applied to adult volunteers; with much less investment of time and resources.

I think, if one went down the genetic route, it would be a matter of combining the best attributes that already exist in the human pan genome. I don’t think they’d have much success if they tried replacing human genes with animal (or plant, or microbial) genes.

 

“If we are not as created, what are we, a genetically modified hybrid. If a human has modified DNA resulting in some of their attributes and abilities, it stands to reason part of their spirit and soul is also inherited.”

As per my previous post, I assume that the spirit is intact at conception. I can’t conceive of how that could be undone or undermined by any subsequent physical (genetic) manipulations. Artificial genetic cloning requires a fertilized egg – they then try to remove and replace the DNA in the already-existing life. I believe it is the point of fertilization when the human becomes a life, with a spirit. I don’t see how any subsequent tweaking of the DNA could change that status.

 

“Whereas, the tampering with cloning and designer babies are not crossing the kind barrier. It says we humans can do better than what God gives us, we are not satisfied, we can be our own little gods.”

Some of it is morally dubious. Though an argument could be made that much of medicine does the same.

 

“Just the thoughts of an old man with too much time on his hands…”

Yup – same. 😊

 

Good morning, Tristen,

I will not beat this horse to death and stop a few inches short. 😊

The following is primitive to what I believe is going on today. Have you seen the old photos and read the articles about mice growing human ears and pigs with human blood? By all appearances, this seems legitimate. If true, could we state the rodent and swine are still 100% as originally created?

It is incredible that science finally mapped the entire human genome several years ago and where that will lead.

The following is possibly related to this subject that has perplexed me, and please bear with me.

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

We all know this as an unpardonable sin (singular). How many unforgivable sins are there?

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the Beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

The above verse and Revelation chapters 15 and 16 make it clear. Those that receive the mark of the Beast are condemned, with zero chance of forgiveness or repentance, and I would say that is another unpardonable sin.

Two things connect with this condemnation (unpardonable sin), worship of the Beast and his image and the MOB.

Would you agree that in this age of Grace, there have been satanic worshipers, people who sold their souls to the Devil, repented, and saved out of the occult? People with visible pentagrams and occult symbology tattooed on their bodies.

Many people in OT times did the same thing, demon, idol worship, sacrificing their children to Molech, etc. After God warned them, they repented of their sins, were granted Grace and mercy, and saved from death and destruction (Nineveh, one example).

No Grace, mercy, or forgiveness is given to those that accepted this MOB. Why, is the question? During this period, the Holy Spirit does not personally indwell individuals but is still active in bringing many to Christ, except those with the mark.

My old feeble gray matter can only think of two logical possibilities. Christ died for humanity, and something about this mark makes them less than human. Or are they possessed by demon(s)?

We see the Day approaching, and the half darkly is rapidly clearing up, and this is the generation, IMO.

[Dennis1209]

11 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

As the owner of six dogs of two different breeds I can tell you your statement is false. On cannot know this unless one is close, really close to their dogs. I have anecdotal, eye witness accounts (by me) that prove otherwise.

Dennis said: The soul and spirit of say a dog, is instinctive, it has no reasoning, critical thinking, or higher creativity.

You say: As the owner of six dogs of two different breeds I can tell you your statement is false. On cannot know this unless one is close, really close to their dogs. I have anecdotal, eye witness accounts (by me) that prove otherwise.

I reply: That is great, I have never owned a dog that can perform trigonometry, calculus, compose music, create wonderful paintings, etc. Where did you get them? 😊

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, BeyondET said:

I enjoyed the read Tristen. Ive been thinking on life,spirit,souls on earth humans hows these come about. It begins and is governed sort of through two channels, stem cell, cerebral cortex.

The blastocyst that forms around the egg the zinc spark is lined with embryo stem cells. Stem cells hold vast amounts of information it's not on a hard drive but biological. Nonetheless it is those beginning cells that gets life going, stores of info passed on from one to the other and all life is from those vast libraries, turned on and off at their due times.

The cerebral cortex has two functions, keeps heart rate digestive and immune system going all the no brainers along with the little helpers we host and that is separate from the cognitive the reasoning where the soul resides.

the basic that gives rise to the complex written out millions of years cell after cell, to the full development of the human cortex for the soul to reside in the cerebral without damaging the spirit vessel.

If that remotely made any sense, if not I apologize a head of time. 😆 

 

If I've understood correctly, it seems like you are trying to figure out the 'how, when and where' the spirit interacts with the body. If that's where you are going, I'm not even sure how to start thinking about that.

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

If I've understood correctly, it seems like you are trying to figure out the 'how, when and where' the spirit interacts with the body. If that's where you are going, I'm not even sure how to start thinking about that.

A little but stems cells and the cerebral cortex keeps everything going. when the human body grows and repairs itself its from stem cells. life is spirit it is why things in the body can keep living for awhile after death, muscle stem cells can live up to 17 days after the breath is gone. The cerebral cortex is consciousness reasoning the soul.

Edited January 14, 2023 by BeyondET

[grahampaul]

 

 

Just for fun may i add.

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

 

born of water,hmm.living waters .dont think a clone counts on that 

 

 

[Tristen]

On 1/14/2023 at 12:09 AM, Dennis1209 said:

Good morning, Tristen,

I will not beat this horse to death and stop a few inches short. 😊

The following is primitive to what I believe is going on today. Have you seen the old photos and read the articles about mice growing human ears and pigs with human blood? By all appearances, this seems legitimate. If true, could we state the rodent and swine are still 100% as originally created?

It is incredible that science finally mapped the entire human genome several years ago and where that will lead.

The following is possibly related to this subject that has perplexed me, and please bear with me.

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

We all know this as an unpardonable sin (singular). How many unforgivable sins are there?

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the Beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

The above verse and Revelation chapters 15 and 16 make it clear. Those that receive the mark of the Beast are condemned, with zero chance of forgiveness or repentance, and I would say that is another unpardonable sin.

Two things connect with this condemnation (unpardonable sin), worship of the Beast and his image and the MOB.

Would you agree that in this age of Grace, there have been satanic worshipers, people who sold their souls to the Devil, repented, and saved out of the occult? People with visible pentagrams and occult symbology tattooed on their bodies.

Many people in OT times did the same thing, demon, idol worship, sacrificing their children to Molech, etc. After God warned them, they repented of their sins, were granted Grace and mercy, and saved from death and destruction (Nineveh, one example).

No Grace, mercy, or forgiveness is given to those that accepted this MOB. Why, is the question? During this period, the Holy Spirit does not personally indwell individuals but is still active in bringing many to Christ, except those with the mark.

My old feeble gray matter can only think of two logical possibilities. Christ died for humanity, and something about this mark makes them less than human. Or are they possessed by demon(s)?

We see the Day approaching, and the half darkly is rapidly clearing up, and this is the generation, IMO.

 

“I will not beat this horse to death and stop a few inches short. 😊”

The horse can take it.

 

“Have you seen the old photos and read the articles about mice growing human ears and pigs with human blood? By all appearances, this seems legitimate. If true, could we state the rodent and swine are still 100% as originally created?”

I’m not sure that any of us “are still 100% as originally created”. The answer depends on how far we decide to extend the reasoning. For example, what about those with cancer? Cancer results from the corruption of (mutations in) functional genes. Would someone fighting cancer be considered “100% as originally created”? Or what about amputees, or those using hearing aids, or pacemakers, or other prosthetics, or even medications etc.?

I would put the ‘ear-mouse’ in this latter category – since that was a non-functioning ear that was engineered outside of the mouse before being implanted. Regarding the “pigs with human blood”, they managed to force two human genes into newly fertilized pig cells. Even in the 5-out-of-1000 times it worked, these five pigs still retained all of their pig genes. No geneticist would confuse them with humans.

 

“It is incredible that science finally mapped the entire human genome several years ago and where that will lead”

It is very cool. But it is still not easy to manipulate genetics on-the-fly – especially in complex, multicellular, eukaryotic organisms.

 

“The following is possibly related to this subject that has perplexed me, and please bear with me. Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. We all know this as an unpardonable sin (singular). How many unforgivable sins are there?

…

Would you agree that in this age of Grace, there have been satanic worshipers, people who sold their souls to the Devil, repented, and saved out of the occult? People with visible pentagrams and occult symbology tattooed on their bodies. Many people in OT times did the same thing, demon, idol worship, sacrificing their children to Molech, etc. After God warned them, they repented of their sins, were granted Grace and mercy, and saved from death and destruction (Nineveh, one example). No Grace, mercy, or forgiveness is given to those that accepted this MOB. Why, is the question?

…

My old feeble gray matter can only think of two logical possibilities. Christ died for humanity, and something about this mark makes them less than human. Or are they possessed by demon(s)?”

I understand where you are coming from. I think if we take your argument back to where you ask, “Why” it is that “No Grace, mercy, or forgiveness is given to those that accepted this MOB”, my brain goes a different direction.

Romans 1 teaches us that rebellion against God involves an intentional rejection of truth. In the Matthew 12 example, even though Jesus was self-evidently performing the works of God, the Pharisees were so determined to reject Him, that they attributed His work to Satan. They didn’t care if He was from God or not.

A reoccurring theme in the Old Testament is that rebellion leads to God lifting His grace – and the resulting hard times drove the people to repentance.

Yet while experiencing tribulation, rather than repent, “Men blasphemed God” (Revelation 16:21). I would therefore speculate that, like the Pharisees, their hearts will become so hardened against God, that those with the mark (who received the mark as an act of worship) intentionally disqualified themselves from God's grace by knowingly rejecting God – As opposed to the idea that God’s mercy and grace was not available to them.