Talk:Traducianism

Grammar error

In the pararaph titled "Biblical support", the sentence beginning "there was never any doubt" is ungrammatical. Someone who knows what the correct meaning is, please fix. Zargulon 06:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement is in passive voice, too, and should not be. CyberAnth 03:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, that's not the passive voice (which would be something like "The doctrine of the divine creation of Adam's soul was held by all of the Church Fathers"). In any case, I made some changes to make that section flow a little more smoothly. --Flex 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs a "Criticisms" section

This article needs more to contrast its subject with "creationism" (immediate divine creation) and have a section of criticisms that creationism adherents level at traducianism. This is more to help one better understand traducianism through contrastive opposition than bias issues. Interesting article otherwise, however. CyberAnth 03:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Flex 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest removing the fifth point under Main Arguments for Traducianism ("souls are already present in the loins") because the whole argument behind this point is based on an equivication of the word "souls."--Gesundheit 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Position of the Eastern Church

This article claims that the Eastern Church has always held to the traducian position. However the article on Creationism (soul) claims that the Eastern Church has always held the creationist position. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.37.203 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Generatianism

Could it be possible that an alternative name for T. is Generatianism? --92.74.125.253 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

pro-life view

Article claims:

Opponents of human traducianism are sometimes found in the pro-life movement, because many among those who hold to pro-life views are of the opinion that embryos have a soul and are to be fully recognized as persons.

That uncited claim makes no sense to me. Prima facie, it would seem that traducianism is more favourable to the anti-abortion case than creationism. If the child's soul is derived by transmission from one or both parents, it must have been present from the very moment of conception. Conversely, if the child's soul is an independent action of creation by God, God could conceivably choose not to perform this act at conception, but at some later point in the pregnancy, which might imply that abortion prior to that point is acceptable. So I am very inclined to think this sentence is simply wrong and should be stricken as incorrect; if someone thinks there is some truth to it, maybe they can provide a cite where that argument is advanced. SJK (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No one objected so I went ahead and deleted the paragraph in question. SJK (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There are also other similar unsourced passages. I added {Refimprove} then. Zezen (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Soul creationism and Eve's substance

The current phrasing in the article is incorrect. Soul creationism does not hold that Eve's substance, material and immaterial was taken out of Adam. What it should say, in Thomistic terminology, is that Eve's matter (i.e. her body, the "material") was taken out of Adam, while her soul (i.e. the form, the"immaterial") was created directly by God. (Eve's "substance", then, is the composite of her body and her soul.) 173.49.57.233 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)