Print

Print


I didn't say the soul would be sexed. I just said that according to Jesus
there would be no marriage. After the general resurrection we will have glorified
bodies (not limited to time and space, and with a constant vision of God). It is the
body that determines sex in relation to other humans. In relation to God, indeed
the individual soul and also the mystical body of Christ as a whole are considered
brides of Christ. So I guess one would get the best of both worlds. :)

I could believe that Tiresias would have to make a choice. ;->

Cheers,
Peter


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:22 AM
  Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?


  Heaven as Plato's Retreat or Heffner's Bunny Hutch? hmmmm. I guess for male and female souls, that would be paradise. But what of Tiresias? If souls are sexed, then there would be hermaphrodite souls also, right? Do they just couple with anybody in bonobic heaven, or what? I'm proceeding from Kate's premise that being female is a condition of the soul. Diana


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
    Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
    To: [log in to unmask]
    Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?
    Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:49:48 -0800


    Actually I am more reminded of the Bonobo (sp?) apes
    who are completely promiscuous, and a whole lot
    happier than chimps. The matriarchal dimension of it is
    fascinating. It would seem the males refrain from agression
    towards them (ala chimps) because they don't know who the
    mothers of their offspring are. Or so the documentary went.

    Given that there will be an angelic dimension to our beings,
    it would seem that time and place will not be dimensions
    of our existence. That would make co-location, so to speak,
    a distinct possibility.

    Cheers,
    Peter
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Diana Manister 
      To: [log in to unmask] 
      Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:37 AM
      Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?


      Well then. Heaven will be full of all these sexed souls with no options but premarital relations or abstinence -- another absurdist joke on us made by our creator? heh. Diana 

        Jesus said the would be no marriage,
        but I don't think he said anything about sex. ;->

        Cheers,
        Peter
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: Diana Manister 
          To: [log in to unmask] 
          Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:35 AM
          Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?


          Perhaps those social roles are fig newtons of our imaginations. It comes as news, however, that souls are sexed. I thought we could be done with all that in heaven. heh. 

          It is then astonishing how many brilliant scientists and poets and
          thinkers throughout history saw social roles.
          Nancy

          >>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 07/15/07 1:07 PM >>>

          As an artist (painter), it is clear to me that the differences between
          male
          and female go beyond the biological and the contour; it is, in fact, a
          matter
          of  heart and soul, and social roles have nothing to do with it.

          Kate

          In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:53:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
          [log in to unmask] writes:

          Nancy  Gish wrote:
          >
          > Eliot is a dead poet and a topic of debate and  study, not a
          participant
          > in the debate.
          >
          > Gender does  not mean sex, and its separate meaning is one of those
          that
          > has become  quite distinct in usage.  It is not a euphemism for sex,
          > which  does not need a euphemism anyway, as in academic terms it
          refers
          > to  biological difference as distinguished from social roles.  Read
          any
          > current or recent texts on gender.
          >  Nancy

          Considering how fixed the distinction between sex and gender is  I'm
          amazed that any literate person isn't familiar with it.

          Even  after making the distinction (gender = social; sex = biology)
          there
          still  remain problems: Up until a couple centuries ago (this is debated
          by some  of course) the model was one sex, two genders: the difference
          between men  and women was a difference of degree -- women were
          incompletely 'cooked'  men. See Thomas Laqueur, _Making Sex: Body and
          Gender from the Greeks to  Freud_ (Harvard UP, 1990). See also a fine
          review by Stephen Jay Gould,  "The Birth of the Two-Sex World," NYRB,
          June 13, 1991.

          Gould  emphasizes that in terms of biology there are equal arguments for
          the  one-sex and the two-sex models. Politically I have held elsewhere
          that  probably the most desirable model is one-sex, many genders. But
          that _is_ a  POLITICAL not a biological or medical issue. The biology is
          quite neutral  on the topic.

          From Gould's review:

          ****
          The "two-sex model"  replaced this concept of woman and man as two
          clumps
          on a graded continuum  with a notion of two fundamentally distinct
          entities, bearing different  organs that imply divergent behaviors and
          aptitudes; (divergent perhaps,  but still eminently rankable, for sexism
          is the one invariant in this  history of transition). Laqueur writes:

          Thus the old model, in which  men and women were arrayed according to
          their degree of metaphysical   perfection, their vital heat, along an
          axis whose telos was  male, gave way by the late eighteenth century to a
          new model of radical  dimorphism, of biological divergence. An anatomy
          and physiology of   incommensurability  replaced a metaphysics of
          hierarchy in the  representation of woman in relation to man.

          Why did this transition  occur, and why over a broad stretch of time
          centered on the early  eighteenth century? The answer cannot lie in any
          simplistic notion of  empirical discovery wrested from nature by
          triumphant science (quite a set  of male images). I shall return to the
          role of empirics among other causes  of transition later in this review,
          but a simple reason suffices to debar  factual adequacy as a primary
          agent of the switch: neither model is  "correct" by any morphological
          standard; both capture elements of  anatomical reality.

          ******

          Both models have supported  male-supremacist ideology, but in different
          ways, which can be crudely  summarized as hierarchical vs "scientific."
          Gould's review discusses that  contrast also.

          Carrol







          ************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new
          AOL at
          http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour




----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Missed the show?  Watch videos of the Live Earth Concert on MSN. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------


          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
          Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/904 - Release Date: 7/16/2007 5:42 PM





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      See what you're getting into.before you go there 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
      Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007 6:10 PM





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  See what you're getting into.before you go there 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.11/909 - Release Date: 7/20/2007 4:39 PM