Part of the recently published work of Dr. Bruce Lipton, a microbiologist whose cellular research has been ongoing for a generation, tells us that how we see the world, our internal environment as colored by our emotions, thoughts, perceptions, effects our cellular function and has now proven to actually change our DNA structures. Within families, as values and perceptions can be shared, similar DNA patterns are also shared, even in families with adopted children, whose families of origin are different.
I think that the paradigms and parameters of science are changing. "of one body" may be a call of each of us to balance the masculine and feminine within us. It may be a call to the ancient tradition of Alchemical Marriage, or blending of spirit of the couple. It may be an understanding that a marrital union inevitably leads us to sharing on the most fundamental (DNA) levels. On Aug 22, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
