While I think the determination of gender on the basis of one's soul is an intriguing concept, from a Christian perspective, I would say that it may not be a viable option.
"Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.'" Matthew 22:29-30
( ... )
The issue with gender identity is one of gender, not sex. There are those in our modern world who feel that though they have male sexual organs and are thus of the male sex, they are really females or feminine in gender. They often, then, have sex changes. Some do not argue so far but still hold that men can be feminine and this be ok. (And vise versa for all of this.) Most Christians I know don't seem to usually allow for one to have a different gender than his/her sex. That's more what I was getting at, but I didn't express it well.
My observation is that while sex is a physical thing, why couldn't gender be a "soul" thing.
As far as your (good) comments and my actual thoughts on these issues, may I direct you here and here? (Only the middle portion of the former post regards gender.)
From Scott Olsondogs_n_rodentsJanuary 17 2009, 20:26:13 UTC
I would like to present the concept of a dualist having naturalist tendencies as a complete impossibility. A dualist Christian as I see it, would see anything in the natural realm through supernatural lenses. As I'm sure you are aware, the watershed issue in definining naturalism is the absence of the supernatural. No miracles, no divinic communion, and no spiritual context of any kind.
Therefore, "Christian dualism", if a viable concept, is simply recognizing the physical world within it's spiritual context.
I know that is not exactly the direction you were headed with this discussion. However, as a Christian apologist I spend a lot of time clarifying the three main worldviews - they are mutually exclusive.
Dualism usually means one of two things other than what you are talking about here.
Dualism, in theology, is the idea that there are two equal and opposed gods/sources of morality. Good and Evil are coeval, and neither will ever eliminate the other. Persian Dualism is the classic example: Ahuramazda and Ahriman are co-equal in their divinity. Christian Dualism sees the Devil as essentially equal to God; whereas in traditional Christianity, the Devil is the foe of the Archangel Michael, being a lesser being in rebellion against the only true God, who is Good.
Greek Dualism believes that matter and spirit are opposed; that matter is evil (or, at least, contaminated); that spirit is good. This leads either to the view that fleshly sins are "worse" than spiritual sins (because all fleshly acts are worse than all spiritual acts), and thus to ascetism, OR to the view that since only spirit can be saved, matter is irrelevant, and fleshly sins can be indulged in at will so long as the spirit is kept pure by enlightenment (gnosis). A
( ... )
It's "life (of the new being) begins at (its) conception".
Neither sperm nor egg is part of the new entity until fused, thus their aliveness is not a problem. And they're not ensouled per se, so this is a case of 0 + 0 = 1 in terms of how many lives (one cares about) exist.
Hi all. Could I ask for a definition of "dualism", as it applies to the science of the mind? From your profile, lhynard, I would be grateful for your definitions of deism and theism, as I understand them to be mutually exclusive, theism affirming the Creator's continued involvement in the creation, and deism denying it. Are our definitions different, or are you holding the contradiction in some sort of tension?
First, the easy answer:1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes 2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature 3 b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit) (The terms used are sometimes different in psychology of mind to be that of "mind and matter" or "body and soul".)
As for the other two, I planned on someday writing a post to clarify that bit in my profile, but no one has ever asked about it till now....
What I mean by my profile is that if I had philosophy alone, I would only have come as far as believing in deism, which is, as you describe it, a belief in a Creator but one who has no involvement in the natural world. To believe in theism -- which I see as just like deism except that the Creator does interfere in the laws of nature He created -- I have need of experience of this "interference
( ... )
Yep. I'm just sorting out whether you use theism as a synonym for monotheism (perhaps as the same belief in relation to differently contrasting beliefs), though I'm guessing not-I assume that deism, however defined, is generally monotheistic. Of course, deism is concerned with God as creator, while polytheism very often isn't
( ... )
I'm not sure if we are LJ friends or not, but my wife (panache62) is with you. She mentioned this post a long time ago because I wrote a lengthy paper on whether the soul enters the human body at conception or some later time
( ... )
Comments 24
Gender Issue
While I think the determination of gender on the basis of one's soul is an intriguing concept, from a Christian perspective, I would say that it may not be a viable option.
"Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.'" Matthew 22:29-30 ( ... )
Reply
My observation is that while sex is a physical thing, why couldn't gender be a "soul" thing.
As far as your (good) comments and my actual thoughts on these issues, may I direct you here and here? (Only the middle portion of the former post regards gender.)
Reply
Ah ok. If that's what you were getting at, then my comments would be more towards sex versus gender.
And I remember your posts about gender, so in that respect, I see where your questions arise from.
Reply
Therefore, "Christian dualism", if a viable concept, is simply recognizing the physical world within it's spiritual context.
I know that is not exactly the direction you were headed with this discussion. However, as a Christian apologist I spend a lot of time clarifying the three main worldviews - they are mutually exclusive.
Reply
Dualism, in theology, is the idea that there are two equal and opposed gods/sources of morality. Good and Evil are coeval, and neither will ever eliminate the other. Persian Dualism is the classic example: Ahuramazda and Ahriman are co-equal in their divinity. Christian Dualism sees the Devil as essentially equal to God; whereas in traditional Christianity, the Devil is the foe of the Archangel Michael, being a lesser being in rebellion against the only true God, who is Good.
Greek Dualism believes that matter and spirit are opposed; that matter is evil (or, at least, contaminated); that spirit is good. This leads either to the view that fleshly sins are "worse" than spiritual sins (because all fleshly acts are worse than all spiritual acts), and thus to ascetism, OR to the view that since only spirit can be saved, matter is irrelevant, and fleshly sins can be indulged in at will so long as the spirit is kept pure by enlightenment (gnosis). A ( ... )
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)
Reply
It's "life (of the new being) begins at (its) conception".
Neither sperm nor egg is part of the new entity until fused, thus their aliveness is not a problem. And they're not ensouled per se, so this is a case of 0 + 0 = 1 in terms of how many lives (one cares about) exist.
Reply
cute
It's "life (of the new being) begins at (its) conception".
How is the concept "being" any different than "soul" though?
And why should a "new being" be important if it is not ensouled?
And how can a life/entity be considered a human life if it does not have a soul, since the dualist view of a human is a being made of body and soul?
Reply
Hi all. Could I ask for a definition of "dualism", as it applies to the science of the mind? From your profile, lhynard, I would be grateful for your definitions of deism and theism, as I understand them to be mutually exclusive, theism affirming the Creator's continued involvement in the creation, and deism denying it. Are our definitions different, or are you holding the contradiction in some sort of tension?
Reply
First, the easy answer:1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)
(The terms used are sometimes different in psychology of mind to be that of "mind and matter" or "body and soul".)
As for the other two, I planned on someday writing a post to clarify that bit in my profile, but no one has ever asked about it till now....
What I mean by my profile is that if I had philosophy alone, I would only have come as far as believing in deism, which is, as you describe it, a belief in a Creator but one who has no involvement in the natural world. To believe in theism -- which I see as just like deism except that the Creator does interfere in the laws of nature He created -- I have need of experience of this "interference ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment