Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Genderless Souls In The Image of God

  1. Apr 11, 2004 #1
    Hello Everyone,

    First off, this premise i'm about to share it is very much required to hold the values of a intelligent creator aka God(s). Besides that of spirits aka souls as embodied or disembodied entities. (ghosts)

    Now to the premise, like the book of Genesis states we are made in the Image of God. (paraphrase) Many have mistook that to mean human biological carnal form, that we narcisstically presume to be an apex unto ourselves.

    Thus if we are made in the Image of God, and God has no biological gender as a omniscent entity / diety. Then we too would portray on a miniscule or microform basis genderless souls / spirits, likewise via ethereal properties.

    Here comes the "Kicker", so as we are genderless souls why to we discriminate so much on the basis of human biological gender. Much less recently due the controversy of "sexual orientation" as biological humans.

    In the end it really wouldn't matter to a genderless soul, their biological gender or sexual orientation. However as humans we are very much prone to divide ourselves into neat or messy categories so as to basically conquer one group over the other. Might isn't always right.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 11, 2004 #2
    The Ying and Yang of the Universe is all about the play of opposites, specifically male vs female. And by the way, God's consort is His wife or, The Church. :biggrin:

  4. Apr 12, 2004 #3
    I'm not so sure our souls are genderless. I've noticed over the years that masculine minds (whether male or female) tend to be focused more on their immediate surroundings (tactical), whereas feminine minds (male or female) tend to be focused more on the bigger picture (strategic). For example, the masculine focus sees a fire and thinks, "Put it out!", but the feminine focus thinks, "Maybe it'll be better for the forest in the long run to let it burn". Mascs think fems are illogical for this way of thinking, but it has more to do with focus than logic or intellectual differences. This symmetry of thought between masc and fem can be a powerful thing if used properly, but most mascs tend to refute this because mascs tend to be dominant in size and strength and therefore believe they are the superior gender (I'm a masc/male, FYI). I'm very pagan in this, because I also believe God is Yahweh/Shekinah, an entity both masc and fem. The Church of Rome did a pretty thorough job in Constantine's time of eradicating the divine feminine and most other pagan beliefs.
  5. Apr 13, 2004 #4
    Phi For All:
    Those characteristics are biological characteristics. Also, you repeatedily pointed out "whether male or female". Would you also like to add that it could also apply for nongenders?
  6. Apr 13, 2004 #5
    Let me be clear on this: males are not always masculine (task-oriented, practical concerns) in their focus, and females are not always feminine (nurturing, big-picture concerns) in theirs. Imparticle, the characteristics male/female are biological indeed. I am making a distinction between the biological genders and what I have observed to be characteristics of the masculine/feminine consciousness in terms of focus.

    Atrayo stated that, "in the end, it really wouldn't matter to a genderless soul, their biological gender or sexual orientation." If "in the end" means once our biological, male or female body is dead, I agree with Atrayo. I should add that I was replying to Atrayo's "Kicker", that we often discriminate based on the difference between male/female. I think a large part of this discrimination is actually based on the difference between masculine/femine, this focus I repeatedly point out. Mascs will go on & on about the details of project (which usually irritates fems), while fems are usually worried about everything that could possibly happen in the future (which usually irritates mascs). Fems think mascs are insensitive to their worries and mascs think fems are illogical & impractical. This focus of consciousness may not be biological, and may not go away when we're dead.

    Imparticle, does this explain why I didn't add the "nongenders" application?

    Atrayo, I thank you very much for sharing your premise. Do you think we will lose our bias when we lose our bodies?
  7. Apr 14, 2004 #6
    I understand that in heaven a marriage of both minds take place, where the masculine (husband) is joined to the feminine (wife) and, that from a distance, the "two angels" appear as one. Perhaps this is where he gets the notion of a genderless soul? However, since the masculine represents the exterior (truth), and the feminine represents the interior (good), that from a distance the "two angels" probably appear to be masculine.

    So, care to further the debate over Science vs Religion?
  8. Apr 16, 2004 #7
    genderless soul ...i think that what he means is that every human being , either male or fmale, before they are dead, already has a genderless soul. That, as atrayo said, could be concluded thru various sexual combinations we tend to practice these days (although we practiced it throughout our history, as well). psychologically, all human beings are bisexual in nature. so everybody is born bisexual, especially the hermaphrodites hehe.

    if that is not enough, then we can also conclude the same by the fact that throughout history, it was our current culture, that preached how men and how women *must* behave, just to further distinct and analyze the differences already imposed by the nature.

    that is obvious by psychologically determined facts; if a girl is raised in a belief that it is a boy, it will believe it is a boy. her convincement will only be hindered by biological differences, being able to get pregnant and stuff. but if you don't tell her that she is a *girl*, she will only know that she is different, but, raised in belief that she is a boy, she will attempt to act and behave in every possible way as one of them. (women who want to, or inadvertedly behave more like men, and vice versa (in most "extreme" and obvious ways transsexuals).

    So, if our consciousness is ethereal, non-physical, and if that can be understood as a soul...i think i agree with you, atrayo from arroyo. Although, we have yet to see if ANYTHING will matter in the end, hehe.
  9. Apr 17, 2004 #8
    A Vision of Marital Love

    http://www.swedenborg.com/ vision of Marital Love ...

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  10. Apr 17, 2004 #9
    children, drugs are bad.
  11. Apr 18, 2004 #10
    I think terminology is hanging us up here. The terms "gender" and "genderless" are being used biologically, and I agree that in the end we will lose our bodies and therefore our gender, and that if the body is just a shell we inhabit while we're in 4 dimensions, then it follows that our consciousness, our souls never had a gender in the first place. But, as Iacchus32 mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, "the Yin and Yang of the universe is all about the play of opposites". I still see our souls as retaining a basic masculine or feminine focus, and that focus may be crucial to a joining which will take place when our biological gender is no longer a concern. The Yin/Yang symmetry has been broken in us, in our biological genders, and perhaps can be repaired when biology is no longer a factor.
  12. Apr 20, 2004 #11
    Hello Phi For All,

    Well currently for humanity our many civilizations have been borne out of duality systems. As Iacchus32 stated the Yin & Yang are two parts, but have you noticed they are retained in a circle and not a square. The path to spiritual or holistic enlightenment is to transcend our duality modes of living. By going into the circle aka a singularity mode, where our spirts / souls have to varying degrees both masculine / feminine tendencies, and perhaps more yet still undiscovered by humanity.

    As to your question:

    Well the old saying goes you can't take your material wealth with you as like your money. What you do take with yourself as the intangilbles of your current life. Such as memories, love & hate (unforgiveness, just picture Atlas carrying the world), possibly characterics & personality likewise. So that may include our bias in where ever we may transcend as to our next bus stop (way point) in eternity.

    Sorry i took some time to follow up on this discussion.
  13. Apr 22, 2004 #12
    Hello, Atrayo! I'm glad this wasn't a post & run. I hope all is well with you.
    Would you agree that transcending starts first with simply acknowledging the fact that we are deficient by ourselves, that we as individuals and humankind as a whole need to combine knowledge of our physical world with faith in that which we cannot prove?

    I can definitely imagine this. When I think of the nextlife transition, I think of the consciousness floating without senses, like one of those deprivation tanks. If the soul (I'll use this instead of consciousness--less to type!) is a loving, forgiving, compassionate one, there is a better chance of linking up with a universal soul (Jung's collective unconscious? Heaven? Kingdom of God? One of the higher dimensions?). If that soul is full of hate, bitterness and denial, it would forever be closed off to any new experiences (or senses!) that may be available.

    Back to the original gender question, do you see this trascendance as being an attempt to have each soul equal regarding old gender biases, or is it a striving to make the two separate halves whole (again?)? I see the first as being like your genderless souls, and the second like the Gnostic idea of healing that which has been broken.
  14. Apr 22, 2004 #13
    Hello Phi For All,

    It almost happened, lol. But, i came back and was surprised by the intelligent and mature discussion here of posters. Since this is a very left brain logic based forum, no offense to the intellectuals out there. :biggrin:

    Well it's like the saying goes if you try to look of the truth outside of yourself you may become very dissillusioned. Socrates is very appropos in stating "Know Thy Self", since only a moderate bunch pursue this path the rest stumble onto what you described as:

    This next point may go back to one of my first points about how we discrimnate biologically by gender and other catergories. Humanities greatest promise and strength is it's myriad diversity, i dare say this is an unconditional form of perfection by the universe's design. (God) However, our ego's likes everything neat and uniform which ushers in racism & discrimination and so forth.

    To double quote you from above on another point:

    Faith isn't an abstract tool, it has sound fundamental methodologies that are therapetic in nature. Although faith doesn't just have to be a tool of religion or spirituality. It can apply to areas that one holds as sacred belief systems to oneself, be it philosopical, political, economic, etc...

    On a soul and human level yes, we need for our very survival and not just abstract fancies to consolidate for our collective good our duality tendencies. Doing so converts that "Yin & Yang" mentioned above into a circle (singularity). If we don't our technology will continue to evolve and surpass us, while our global social reforms in the 20th century will be for naught.

    My take on this is, depending on what intangabiles we harbor upon our crossing as spirits. Our souls will be moored like a boat to that vibration / frequency we resonate most with in our ethereal spirit form. So the Catholic belief of purgatory makes alot of sense if you take into account on what i theorized in the above sentence.
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2004
  15. Apr 22, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Gender is not a biological concept; it is social. That is why if a biological male thinks of himself as female, we refer to him as transgendered. Presumably, a disembodied soul that was male when embodied may very well continue to think of itself as male. However, given that the brain physiology and hormones that caused him to think like a male in the first place will no longer be a factor, perhaps it won't.
  16. Apr 26, 2004 #15
    You don't understand what mysticism is then I take it? :wink:
  17. Apr 27, 2004 #16
    hey i'm just kidding, man:-)

    i know what that little story stands for, it's just that i usually don't use such high-flying comparisons for things that seem obvious to me, so i find it hard to refrain from a bit stupid comments that i find humorous (only to myself, perhaps, but hey, can't i entertain myself??:-)

    sorry, gee:-)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook