Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Quick questions for soul-believing Christians

Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 3:03:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is sort of a quick poll for a post that I might make later. If you answer, it's very appreciated.

Do any Christians here believe that the soul (if you believe in souls) is gendered (the squiggly red line tells me that this isn't a word, but I'm sure you get the point)?

Thanks.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 3:39:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
hmmm. interesting question. i've never really thought about it before. If I had to guess, I would say no, because our souls are something distinct from our physical manifestation, of which we base our constructs of gender, even transsexuals.

but i admittedly wish, in my puny human brain, that that wasn't the case...

Then again, the fallen angels, who have spiritual bodies rather than physical bodies, could supposedly impregnate humans, so maybe souls do have genders. But their ability to impregnate doesn't necessarily mean they were definitively male, because they had "perfect" spiritual bodies.

Hmm. Inconclusive. Will have to ponder on that one some more.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 4:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 3:39:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
hmmm. interesting question. i've never really thought about it before. If I had to guess, I would say no, because our souls are something distinct from our physical manifestation, of which we base our constructs of gender, even transsexuals.

but i admittedly wish, in my puny human brain, that that wasn't the case...

Then again, the fallen angels, who have spiritual bodies rather than physical bodies, could supposedly impregnate humans, so maybe souls do have genders. But their ability to impregnate doesn't necessarily mean they were definitively male, because they had "perfect" spiritual bodies.

Hmm. Inconclusive. Will have to ponder on that one some more.

But are phyisical distinction effect our mental distinctions. So we would have to say that is not mind and its not body, But what are we really without our mind. without our thougts without our memories. There is nothing left of us. That is the problem with the definition of spirit or spirituality. aka There is none. It tend to be not mind nore body. Which is not-ness.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 4:45:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 4:22:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/27/2012 3:39:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
hmmm. interesting question. i've never really thought about it before. If I had to guess, I would say no, because our souls are something distinct from our physical manifestation, of which we base our constructs of gender, even transsexuals.

but i admittedly wish, in my puny human brain, that that wasn't the case...

Then again, the fallen angels, who have spiritual bodies rather than physical bodies, could supposedly impregnate humans, so maybe souls do have genders. But their ability to impregnate doesn't necessarily mean they were definitively male, because they had "perfect" spiritual bodies.

Hmm. Inconclusive. Will have to ponder on that one some more.

But are phyisical distinction effect our mental distinctions. So we would have to say that is not mind and its not body, But what are we really without our mind. without our thougts without our memories. There is nothing left of us. That is the problem with the definition of spirit or spirituality. aka There is none. It tend to be not mind nore body. Which is not-ness.

I don't think that our mind is limited to our physical brain, just like our spiritual body is not limited to our physical body. this is essentially what a soul is.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:11:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 4:22:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/27/2012 3:39:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
hmmm. interesting question. i've never really thought about it before. If I had to guess, I would say no, because our souls are something distinct from our physical manifestation, of which we base our constructs of gender, even transsexuals.

but i admittedly wish, in my puny human brain, that that wasn't the case...

Then again, the fallen angels, who have spiritual bodies rather than physical bodies, could supposedly impregnate humans, so maybe souls do have genders. But their ability to impregnate doesn't necessarily mean they were definitively male, because they had "perfect" spiritual bodies.

Hmm. Inconclusive. Will have to ponder on that one some more.

But are phyisical distinction effect our mental distinctions. So we would have to say that is not mind and its not body, But what are we really without our mind. without our thougts without our memories. There is nothing left of us. That is the problem with the definition of spirit or spirituality. aka There is none. It tend to be not mind nore body. Which is not-ness.

Btw, I like that you didn't answer me in your normal recap fashion. You don't need a gimmick to define yourself. It's selling yourself short. Your personality is enough on its own :)
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:15:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:25:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:22:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a disembodied consciousness = no gender, then why do people call God "he"?

because we are human, and thus, "he" becomes easier to identify/ understand.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:28:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:22:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a disembodied consciousness = no gender, then why do people call God "he"?
It's a matter of language, nothing else.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, I'm not a Christian anymore, but when I was I did not believe in either an anthropomorphic God nor anthropomorphic souls. So, no.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:32:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:25:37 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:22:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a disembodied consciousness = no gender, then why do people call God "he"?

because we are human, and thus, "he" becomes easier to identify/ understand.:

^This^

Gender dominates identification purposes. There's no sense for an incorporeal being to have a penis, which anatomically, only has two functions -- urination and procreation.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:35:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 3:39:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
hmmm. interesting question. i've never really thought about it before. If I had to guess, I would say no, because our souls are something distinct from our physical manifestation, of which we base our constructs of gender, even transsexuals.

but i admittedly wish, in my puny human brain, that that wasn't the case...

Then again, the fallen angels, who have spiritual bodies rather than physical bodies, could supposedly impregnate humans, so maybe souls do have genders. But their ability to impregnate doesn't necessarily mean they were definitively male, because they had "perfect" spiritual bodies.

Hmm. Inconclusive. Will have to ponder on that one some more.

The fallen angels were fallen. Their spiritual bodies were forsaken in their rejection. They lost their first estate, becoming material was a consequence of becoming dense, and therefore hardened into the lower state. In that they were tuned to the harmonics of darkness and what comes with it. From the mind to inside out they were reduced to living in our paradigm of existing. They became more like human beings in becoming material. Their minds went with that, and the desires that are common to our existence.
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:44:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:32:11 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:25:37 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:22:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a disembodied consciousness = no gender, then why do people call God "he"?

because we are human, and thus, "he" becomes easier to identify/ understand.:

^This^

Gender dominates identification purposes. There's no sense for an incorporeal being to have a penis, which anatomically, only has two functions -- urination and procreation.

Are you aware of the Entity psychic investigation. I communicated with Dr. Elizabeth Cooley during the investigation. A immaterial being, with two others would manifest into our paradigm of existing and physically rape two women repeatedly. Dr. Cooley was able to secure $200,000 to do a controlled experiment. On the 28th day of the experiment the Entity materialized and interacted with physical matter. You'll also note in the UFO phenomenon the range of reports on sexual pursuit by some ET groups. The ETs may be anything, including malevolent beings operating in the physical reality we exist. The Entity case is a clear evidence of immaterial beings having a potential for being sexually drawn. With the fallen ones you're not talking about their being immaterial anymore, they were tuned down to physicality when cast down out of heaven. Immaterial beings can become physical, the Entity case clearly demonstrates that. The common day to day thinking on their states of being are of equal potential to what came into hard evidence in that case.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 5:45:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fallen angels were fallen. Their spiritual bodies were forsaken in their rejection. They lost their first estate, becoming material was a consequence of becoming dense, and therefore hardened into the lower state. In that they were tuned to the harmonics of darkness and what comes with it. From the mind to inside out they were reduced to living in our paradigm of existing. They became more like human beings in becoming material. Their minds went with that, and the desires that are common to our existence.:

lol, wut...?

Remember that verse where it talks about the fallen angels materializing into human form?

Yeah, me neither.

There's a tiny blurb about Nephilim, and it certainly doesn't say anything along those lines.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 6:04:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 3:03:53 PM, Rusty wrote:
This is sort of a quick poll for a post that I might make later. If you answer, it's very appreciated.

Do any Christians here believe that the soul (if you believe in souls) is gendered (the squiggly red line tells me that this isn't a word, but I'm sure you get the point)?

Thanks.

No, I don't think so. What prompted your inquiry?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 6:36:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 6:04:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/27/2012 3:03:53 PM, Rusty wrote:
This is sort of a quick poll for a post that I might make later. If you answer, it's very appreciated.

Do any Christians here believe that the soul (if you believe in souls) is gendered (the squiggly red line tells me that this isn't a word, but I'm sure you get the point)?

Thanks.


No, I don't think so. What prompted your inquiry?

Haha ... if this post is like that others, it will be lost in the ramblings of some self-proclaimed pseudoscientists and semi-logical logicians who ask questions and expect answers, but when asked a question, shrug it off and impiously question the appropriateness of the question.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:15:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:11:59 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/27/2012 4:22:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/27/2012 3:39:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
hmmm. interesting question. i've never really thought about it before. If I had to guess, I would say no, because our souls are something distinct from our physical manifestation, of which we base our constructs of gender, even transsexuals.

but i admittedly wish, in my puny human brain, that that wasn't the case...

Then again, the fallen angels, who have spiritual bodies rather than physical bodies, could supposedly impregnate humans, so maybe souls do have genders. But their ability to impregnate doesn't necessarily mean they were definitively male, because they had "perfect" spiritual bodies.

Hmm. Inconclusive. Will have to ponder on that one some more.

But are phyisical distinction effect our mental distinctions. So we would have to say that is not mind and its not body, But what are we really without our mind. without our thougts without our memories. There is nothing left of us. That is the problem with the definition of spirit or spirituality. aka There is none. It tend to be not mind nore body. Which is not-ness.

Lickafoot: Btw, I like that you didn't answer me in your normal recap fashion. You don't need a gimmick to define yourself. It's selling yourself short. Your personality is enough on its own :)

The Fool: to think that you could define your self in anything is a semantic Fallacy. Aka I could define a unicorns existing. it doesn' make it exist. I can define my computer as a hat. But low and behold what I had called a computer is still the verything it was. Language can only describe what exist not define something into existence. When you define a word all you are doing is assigning a set of words to a One particalur word. Personality is a set of characteristic which we recognize in someone if you define youself as a particular personallity you sell yourself short of the endless possibilty or what you could be. The defined personality makes people act to cohere with it instead of being a moving, leaning and forever evolving body of mind. That is you block youself in a box and prevent the possibilties in what you coudl be.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:21:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I would be considered athiest by most of peoples standard and I can argue logically for the soul, in the sense of mind. But whether it survives death is unknown..

The Fool: What is interesting to not about the soul is that when the BIble was made the word for soul and mind where the same. They actually mean the mind, continues on after the body. They just changed the interpretation later to keep it coherent with new knowledge about the universe. But they were never different. its a fraud.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 7:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:25:37 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 3/27/2012 5:22:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If a disembodied consciousness = no gender, then why do people call God "he"?

because we are human, and thus, "he" becomes easier to identify/ understand.

The Fool: is always suprises me when people assume the bible to be rational in anyway. When it also had the most ridiculas stories like Noahs Ark. Where all all Humanity is murdered by God in a severe mass drowning. (Thats right only Noah new how to makea boat.) and only two of each animal just walked up in single file. Thats right, screw all the other innocent animals, From dislocated continents and all. And no food, and the animal who completly depend on eating other animals just hung out and took-er easy. From lions to insects and birds and all. Yep and Noah the only Male left in the world. That leaves only one way he could reproduce. Hmmmm. Disqusting. How does that paswith flying colors, that you decided it was more wierd of the fact the God is a he. Who had a son, which was himself and he died, and was still alive, and its supposed to be a sacrifice. But he didnt really die. So he doesn't really end up sacrificing anything now does he..eh. ranting, from the hill. ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2012 1:24:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/27/2012 5:35:04 PM, astrocometman wrote:
At 3/27/2012 3:39:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
hmmm. interesting question. i've never really thought about it before. If I had to guess, I would say no, because our souls are something distinct from our physical manifestation, of which we base our constructs of gender, even transsexuals.

but i admittedly wish, in my puny human brain, that that wasn't the case...

Then again, the fallen angels, who have spiritual bodies rather than physical bodies, could supposedly impregnate humans, so maybe souls do have genders. But their ability to impregnate doesn't necessarily mean they were definitively male, because they had "perfect" spiritual bodies.

Hmm. Inconclusive. Will have to ponder on that one some more.

The fallen angels were fallen. Their spiritual bodies were forsaken in their rejection. They lost their first estate, becoming material was a consequence of becoming dense, and therefore hardened into the lower state. In that they were tuned to the harmonics of darkness and what comes with it. From the mind to inside out they were reduced to living in our paradigm of existing. They became more like human beings in becoming material. Their minds went with that, and the desires that are common to our existence.
The only Story book ' fallen angels ' were humans!

Story book spirit-angels can NEVER fall/become bad -

1. For the wages of sin [is] death; . . . (Rom. 6:23) KJV story book

2. ALL spirit angels never die (Luke 20:36) KJV story book (Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; . . . .)

If you can never die, then you can never sin

Next!