posted
I'm curious about what Christians believe about a person's soul. Is the soul sexless and a person's gender determined by the human body they happen to inhabit, or do souls have predefined genders that are essential to their being?
I ask in regards to a thought about Christian views on homosexuality that I had. Because when you love somebody you don't love their body and appearance right? You love their soul. Who they are inside. So if souls are genderless, then what's wrong with homosexuality?
Though if souls do have a gender, then I guess homosexuals will continue having to go to hell for the time being. Sorry guys. I tried.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on what kind of Christian you're talking about. Some believe the soul is created for the specific body at the time of conception, or at the time of birth, or somewhere in between. Some believe the soul existed before in a sexless, "part of a whole" state. Latter-day Saints believe that the soul exists before the body, and has specific gender, personality, and personal attributes. Others believe something in between or a combination.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a very loaded way to pose this question.
Anyway, my church (LDS) believes that gender is eternal, and that both male and female are created in the image of Heavenly parents. Spirits as well as bodies.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though if souls do have a gender, then I guess homosexuals will continue having to go to hell for the time being. Sorry guys. I tried.
Your logic doesn't follow, because while there are many sects who don't believe souls have a set Gender, they still believe in hellfire for homosexuals.
Whereas some who DO believe in set genders for souls have quite a different understanding of the afterlife, and, while viewing homosexual activities as sinful, don't condemn transgressors into literal eternal hellfire.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're correct Taalcon. I didn't mean it to sound harsh.
But while Mormons(and others who believe the same way, if there are) believe that, I think there are far more who believe otherwise. I may be wrong, I haven't done any research. So the comment, mostly said in joking, is still valid in general..
posted
Well not entirely true, the sin is not homosexual desires, but acts themselves. It's not a sin to love someone of the opposite gender (in which case your original theory makes more sense) but to commit homosexual acts, which, it doesn't matter what happens after, are homosexual acts based on bodies alone.
posted
Also, we don't really believe in "eternal torment" as such, except for a very few; we believe people who have done wrong will suffer, but more in a realization of their sins and all that kind of thing than literal "burning flame" or whatever. Eventually, almost all will be granted one glory or another, and even the least glory will be wonderful.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, an piece of Mormon trivia -- sometimes we use the word "soul" as synonamous to the word "spirit" (especially when speaking with people who aren't LDS), and sometimes we use "soul" to mean the spirit plus the body.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are personalities really integral parts of the spirit? I guess it depends on how you define a personality. And, uh, just for clarification while soul is sometimes used interchangeably for spirit, in LDS cosmology the soul is the spirit and body combined.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really mean "personality", but I couldn't think of a better word...
I have never encountered such a marked delineation between the words "spirit" and "soul". Citations, that I may better understand it?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
That is the scriptural basis for the spirit/soul deliniation. Many modern prophets have expounded on it to clarify it further. The idea is that without a physical body, a soul is incomplete. Often, though, the words soul and spirit are used interchangeably, adding to the confusion.
[ May 06, 2005, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, I believe you are correct that the majority of non-Mormon Christian doctrine holds that souls are genderless. Having to be only one or the other is a limitation imposed by physical form (including brain chemistry, etc). Such doctrines also do not believe that God is limited by gender (having no physical form), although most of them use the pronoun "he" anyway.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another useful link on the LDS perspective about gender is The Family: A Proclamation to the World, a document released by the First Presidency of the church in 1995. The 2nd paragraph deals specifically with gender.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While theoligically I beleive that souls are genderless (and so is God) I always envision the souls of my loved ones as being a spirit version of their Earthly selves. I don't know what that stems from..partly, I think, a desire to recognise them when I join them ( and my fleshy self can't imagine doing it any other way) and partly a desire for the person *I knew* to be living on.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I feel that way too, romany. It's possibly because even if souls are genderless, a person's personality relates to their body and relates to their gender. So it's hard to think of how we'd be without them. I wonder..
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe most Protestants believe, as Catholics do, that bodies are resurrected, so that while the soul may be genderless (I don't actually know the teaching on that), gender is not irrelevant in the afterlife.
Also, "when you love somebody you don't love their body and appearance" isn't quite accurate. A person's body is part of them and is part of the being that is loved.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may be right - I don't know that much about Protestant theology or divisions within it. But, I thought most mainline/evangelical denominations believe in the Apostle's Creed, which specifically includes resurrection of the body as one of its tenets.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my most cherished memories is of being with a family when the husband/father was dying. One of the daughters was hugging him and said something along the lines of “it’s okay to let go Dad, it’s not your body we love anyway, it’s your soul.” Her mother (a fairly “proper” older lady looked up indignantly and said “I loved both.” The daughter (in her mid-40s I would guess) got the “OMG my parents have sex” look. And then everybody laughed and cried.
Porter, I suspect many Protestants think about the afterlife as being spirits without bodies. But if they paid attention to the actual teachings of their church, most protestant denominations affirm the Apostles’ Creed, which includes the belief in the resurrection of the body. It’s harder to tell with the non-denominational independent churches, of course. You’d have to look at the doctrinal statements of each congregation. But of the traditional denominations, I don’t know of any that don’t believe in bodily resurrection.
Basically, this is one of those questions that comes down to faith in a bit of doctrine handed down through a long line of tradition, theological debate, and no possible way of proving anything one way or the other.
While I don't myself ascribe to an agnostic position in general terms, I often wonder whether it wouldn't just be better for all concerned if we all just answered this (and many other unprovable things) with a simple "we don't know."
Is it really that important to frame a coherent-sounding (to humans on Earth) doctrine regarding the nature of afterlife, gender of souls, resurrection of body and/or spirit, etc?
I can't be THAT unique in not really caring, can I? I mean, I have faith that it'll be immeasureably better than anything I can imagine -- and I've got a pretty good imagination for such things. So, what's wrong with telling people "wait and see...you'll love it!"
Is anticipation of a specific afterlife model really a big motivator for people here on Earth? Does it make people want to behave better knowing the nature of heaven's rewards? I can understand the desire to ask these questions, and even to come up with answers for them. But really, if this kind of thing is required for faith, it seems a pretty shaky faith...
Oooh, bright, shiny heaven! I want some!!!
How about "you'll see when we get there! Now stop poking your brother!"
posted
Bob, I can't answer for Protestants and Catholics, but for a Mormon those questions are essential to belief. They are the center of Salvational Theology as understood through the Revelations of LDS prophets, particularly Joseph Smith.
To reject the possibility for answers to those questions is to reject LDS revelation and doctrine. Answering the questions of where we came from, who we are, and what awaits us after this life is essential. To paraphrase Joseph Smith, to know ourselves is to know God.
posted
I'm a Christian but not an LDS. I believe in pre-existence, but I don't believe the soul has gender. Mind this doesn't mean it is "AC/DC." It means it is not a sexual being. That aspect of personality is, I believe, associated exclusively with our bodily forms and determined by the nature of those bodily forms, not by the soul...although I do think the soul has a part in deciding what body it will inhabit. I think the soul chooses for reasons that it "forgets" once it is encased in the body and that the forgetting happens because if the soul could remember what happened before it would be so terribly distracted by what was that it would not be able to concentrate on what is. And it's important to concentrate on that so as to learn whatever there was to learn from taking that particular life.
So, that's what I think. Posts: 745 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
