No, biologists do not say a mated pair is one organism. That would be an utterly UNscientific thing to say, as there are clearly TWO organisms present, mating, one male, one female. Feel free to have whatever faith you have, but PLEASE don't start trying to mix science into it. Especially if you think it is a " fact that the human mammal is an embodied person (not a spirit using a body) and we arrive at the "one flesh" doctrine in Mark 10:18."
A. There has never, ever, in the history of science, been such a thing proven as a spirit or soul. Feel free to believe in them if you like, but it's not something any legitimate biologist would say. B. Human mammal as embodied person? What are you talking about? On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > And that is the 20th century pagan view -- that "we share without > blending", in contrast to the Christian view and what I suspect is the > modern scientific view that "the two become one flesh". For when > Grisez says "intercourse... makes the copulating male and female one > organism" he is speaking of mammals in general. As a matter of > science, do biologists say the mated pair is one organism? > > If that is true, we add the fact that the human mammal is an embodied > person (not a spirit using a body) and we arrive at the "one flesh" > doctrine in Mark 10:18. > > On Aug 21, 9:58 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > And is that problematic? Khalil Ghibran recommended that, suggesting that > > love partners be as two candles who share their light, without blending > it. > > Welcome, BJ. My best friend in the whole world has a very degenerative > case > > of MS, which is what started me off as an activist for medical cannabis. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:37 AM, bjdowling <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, I have multiple schlerosis and was diagnosed in 1998. The form > > > this disease takes in me is great physical pain, amongst other > > > things. the point is that though my husband is sympathic to some > > > degree, he cannot possible experience the thing I always live with, no > > > matter how much he loves me. We are not one flesh, but two. > > > > > On Aug 22, 12:17 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but > > > > one." - Mark 10:18 > > > > > > As a married Catholic I believe this "one flesh". I just don't > > > > understand it. Until last week I thought it was poetic language, but > > > > when I read the below by Germain Grisez, I realize I was thinking the > > > > past two decades like an atheist: > > > > > > "Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to > > > > other functions—for example, nutrition, sensation, and > locomotion—with > > > > respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated > pair, > > > > which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even > > > > if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the > > > > reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the > > > > copulating male and female one organism." > > > > > > But I don't want to assume I was thinking like an pagan. Perhaps > > > > you're saying "of course I am one flesh with my spouse; what could be > > > > more natural?". Could you who believe you are literally "one flesh" > > > > shed light for this poor Catholic? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
