Do souls have gender?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you know of any spiritual beings? Do they have gender?

Of course you do – and of course they don’t: God, the Holy Spirit, the angels. None have ‘gender’. Why would the spiritual aspect of the human being (that is, the soul) have gender?
There are people who claim to see angels and they often say of the angels that this angel has a male aspect or that angel is manifesting itself in a female manner.

One woman, who was walking along a pathway on the campus of the seminary at Maynooth Ireland, said that as the Archangel Michael was walking beside her in the guise of a priest, and as a couple of other young priests drew near, they saw him and greeted him: “Good morning, Father.”

Hebrews 13.1 said:
1 Continue to love each other like brothers,

2 and remember always to welcome strangers, for by doing this, some people have entertained angels without knowing it.
 
Male and female - gender - are the images of God.

That is nothing I am saying. It is what God is revealing to us in the Bible.
No; you’re misreading the quote. Pay attention to the punctuation in the translation:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Semicolon; we stop that thought (“imago Dei”) and begin another “male and female”. God’s image is not male or female. God is not gendered, but is pure spirit.
 
There are people who claim to see angels and they often say of the angels that this angel has a male aspect or that angel is manifesting itself in a female manner.
Notice what you yourself have said: it’s not the angel ‘is’ male or female, but that the angel manifests in a gendered manner. Big difference.

This doesn’t really prove anything, though: if an angel manifests in human form, then it necessarily must manifest in a gendered way. That only means that humans have gender, not that angels do. 😉
 
The logic just doesn’t follow, Gorgias.
That’s because, it seems, that you’re misunderstanding me…?
We can be made in God’s image in so many ways, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that we match God as genderless beings.
I’m not saying that we’re ‘genderless beings’ – the entirety of our being (i.e., our personhood) is gendered… because our physical body is gendered (not the other way around). Similarly, our entire person is “in the image and likeness of God” because our spiritual soul is. We take these characteristics into our person – but that doesn’t mean that either our soul is gendered or our body looks like God. 😉
 
No, Scriputre is clear… God the FATHER (gender) And the pronoun “he” used for teh Holy Spirit. They have gender. There would be no calling “God, The Father” if he was gender-less.
Nope. :nope:

From the Catechism, #239 (emphasis mine):
By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard
 
I’m not saying that we’re ‘genderless beings’ – the entirety of our being (i.e., our personhood) is gendered…
Yes.
because our physical body is gendered (not the other way around).
Yes…but that still leaves the possibility that our soul is also gendered.
Similarly, our entire person is “in the image and likeness of God” because our spiritual soul is.
And that still leaves the possibility that our soul is gendered, and in this way it is different from the image and likeness of God. Just like our soul is different from God in other ways…like not being omnipresent. Not being good and pure at our essence. Not being omniscient. Not being existence itself.

So, it could also not be genderless.
 
And that still leaves the possibility that our soul is gendered, and in this way it is different from the image and likeness of God.
No. But, I get the way you’re playing the game. In essence, unless you see doctrine that explicitly says, “souls have no gender,” then you respond “but how do you know for sure?”. sigh
Just like our soul is different from God in other ways…like not being omnipresent. Not being good and pure at our essence. Not being omniscient. Not being existence itself.
So, it could also not be genderless.
No. You’re talking about the difference between ‘creator’ and ‘creature’, not the essential nature of an immaterial soul. Gender speaks to physical differences; souls are non-physical. It’s like saying, “hey – how could you know for sure that souls don’t weigh 10 pounds???” … and the answer would be the same: we know because that’s a characteristic of physical, not immaterial things. 🤷
 
No. But, I get the way you’re playing the game. In essence, unless you see doctrine that explicitly says, “souls have no gender,” then you respond “but how do you know for sure?”. sigh
What an odd objection to make on a forum whose raison d’etre is to pursue answers…

It is so peculiar to think I’d be ok with an answer like “No” to a question that’s already borne out discussion of 4 pages.

How perplexing it is to me to see you sniff at a question that’s quite trenchant–“how do you know”.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am quite open to considering any apologia of one’s position here. As the Church has not made any explicit teaching on this issue, I will digest and embrace any argument that I find compelling.

Yours have not been logical, reasonable or made me conclude that you are arguing a position that has merit.

At any rate, I am pleased to see that you are interested enough in me to visit my Profile Page (again!) 🙂 generate thoughtful discussion, but it appears that you haven’t been able to emend it, so, again, I will have to return you to my ignore list. :sad_yes:
 
No. But, I get the way you’re playing the game. In essence, unless you see doctrine that explicitly says, “souls have no gender,” then you respond “but how do you know for sure?”. sigh
What an odd objection to make on a forum whose raison d’etre is to pursue answers…

It is so peculiar to think I’d be ok with an answer like “No” to a question that’s already borne out discussion of 4 pages.

How perplexing it is to me to see you sniff at a question that’s quite trenchant–“how do you know”.

Let me be perfectly clear: I am quite open to considering any apologia of one’s position here. As the Church has not made any explicit teaching on this issue, I will digest and embrace any argument that I find compelling.

Yours have not been logical, reasonable or made me conclude that you are arguing a position that has merit.

At any rate, I am pleased to see that you are interested enough in me to visit my Profile Page (again!) 🙂

But, alas, I thought that perhaps your posting style had revised enough to generate thoughtful discussion, but it appears that you haven’t been able to emend it, so, again, I will have to return you to my ignore list. :sad_yes:
 
Re: Moses and Elijah, both of their bodies were allegedly taken up to Heaven. (St. Jude talks about the Moses bit in his Epistle, if I recall correctly.)

Re: saintly apparitions and visions in general, we aren’t seeing the souls of saints. Either we are seeing an appearance created by God; or we are seeing a vision created by God in the imaging areas of our brains. Either way, it’s a convenient interface for our poor minds, but not the point of what’s going on. (And indeed, St. John of the Cross points out that in any kind of experience of this kind, the real point is the way God is helping our souls grow, which is done “behind our backs” so that we don’t even notice.)

Re: the magisterial definition of “soul,” Father Hardon had good info in his Modern Catholic Dictionary:
SOUL: The spiritual immortal part in human beings that animates their body. Though a substance in itself, the soul is naturally ordained toward a body; separated, it is an “incomplete” substance. The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form. It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. It is moreover created in respect to the body it will inform, so that the substance of bodily features and of mental characteristics insofar as they depend on organic functions is safeguarded. As a simple and spiritual substance, the soul cannot die. Yet it is not the total human nature, since a human person is composed of body animated by the soul.
“Form” in this case does not mean “shape.” It’s the philosophical and theological term. Here’s its definition.
FORM: The nature or essence of a thing; the internal specific principle of the distinctive nature or activities of any created being. Also, after a change, the new feature(s) in whatever has been changed. Contrasted with “matter” in scholastic philosophy and theology.
Because every soul is individually created by God and individually infused into its body by God, there is no possible mismatch between soul and body. Every single one of our souls is a custom design job!

This doctrine is also a rebuke to the pagan Greek philosophers and cults, who often taught stuff like that women had no immortal soul, that some people were natural slaves with weaker souls, or that women had to reincarnate into becoming men before their souls could become perfected.

Re: soul and body and the sex of the body, I am surprised that nobody has pointed the poster toward St. John Paul II’s papers on the Theology of the Body.
 
What an odd objection to make on a forum whose raison d’etre is to pursue answers…
Because every answer earns the response “but how could we knowwwwwww?!?!?!?” 😉
How perplexing it is to me to see you sniff at a question that’s quite trenchant–“how do you know”.
If I’m sniffing, it’s because it’s already been explained – at length, and repeatedly – how we know. 🤷
Yours have not been logical, reasonable or made me conclude that you are arguing a position that has merit.
:rolleyes:

And yet, if my responses were illogical, they are met with the ultimate in logic-free rebuttals: “how do we knowwwwww?”
At any rate, I am pleased to see that you are interested enough in me to visit my Profile Page (again!) 🙂
The “25 things…” caught my attention.
But, alas, I thought that perhaps your posting style had revised enough to generate thoughtful discussion, but it appears that you haven’t been able to emend it, so, again, I will have to return you to my ignore list. :sad_yes:
Alas.

p.s., “amend”. 😉
 
Because every soul is individually created by God and individually infused into its body by God, there is no possible mismatch between soul and body. Every single one of our souls is a custom design job!
So why are the people with missing limbs, hypoplastic hearts, anomalous bile ducts, etc etc etc?

It would seem that if God, who is still the author of the human body, permits anomalies to occur in the physical body, it is reasonable to believe God could also permit anomalies to occur in body/soul matching.

I dunno… 🤷
 
Re: soul and body and the sex of the body, I am surprised that nobody has pointed the poster toward St. John Paul II’s papers on the Theology of the Body.
Yes. This is a magnificent resource, yet I’ve not read anything from the TOB that directly addresses this?

Is there a reader here who can direct me to something from this that would illuminate the discussion?
 
I don’t think so.

There’s a whole lot of people in the world right now who don’t have reason, but they still have souls.
Reason is forming judgments (right/wrong, etc). It is the soul that gets judged.
 
Yes.

And babies have no reason. But they have souls–you agree to this, yes?
Babies do not think?
They may not think like an adult, or a child, but they do solve problems.
Primary instincts are intuitive thought processes. If this then that, if not then this,… These are making judgments, these are reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top