How evolution undermines Salvation

[The_Barbarian]

Appropriately, it was Joseph McCarthy’s attempt to smear a young lawyer and a member of the organization as a Communist that brought his downfall.

McCarthy, whose followers apparently still roam the net, had taken on the Army, largely because they wouldn’t grant special favors to a young man with whom he had an association.

In the hearings that followed, Joseph Welch, the counsel for the Army, confronted McCarthy for his bullying and false accusations of “communism” on public television. It was the beginning of the end for McCarthy.

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? "

Good question.

 

[drpmjhess]

Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? "Good question.

O Great Barbarian, if I may bring this conversation back to biology for a moment, I’d like to ask you a question about the Incarnation. I realize you many not be a geneticist, but you may be able to direct me to one who could answer some of these questions. What is your take on the genetics of Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus?

(1) Was Jesus haploid or diploid? Could he haver been parthenogenetically haploid?
(2) If diploid, was the “divine” half of his chromosomal load genetically related to his human semitic ancestry, or not?
(3) If God miraculously constructed a haploid genome that was then syngametically conjoined with Mary’s, was this genome merely a simulacrum of a semiitic haploid genome, or was it real?
(4) If it was a real half-genome, from what gene pool might the Holy Spirit have drawn the chromosomes, including Jesus Y chromosome?
(5) How would the mechanics of syngamy work?

Of course, if we simply opt for Mary’s miraculous conception of Jesus in terms of “overshadowing by the Holy Spirit,” we could sidestep these genetic issues entirely. However, it seems crucial to safeguard the full humanity of Jesus, in which case these biological questions are necessary, and fascinating. I don’t know of a theologian who has tacked this issue, and I’d be interested in references if you know of such.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Appropriately, it was Joseph McCarthy’s attempt to smear a young lawyer and a member of the organization as a Communist that brought his downfall.

McCarthy, whose followers apparently still roam the net, had taken on the Army, largely because they wouldn’t grant special favors to a young man with whom he had an association.

In the hearings that followed, Joseph Welch, the counsel for the Army, confronted McCarthy for his bullying and false accusations of “communism” on public television. It was the beginning of the end for McCarthy.

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? "

Good question.

Joseph McCarthy was right most of the time. See “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans. Also see “Red Spies in America” by Katherine Sibley.

Attempts by Atheistic Communism to undermine the United States has been going on since World War II. That is why Communists/Leftists/Liberals forced evangelical schools in Canada to teach Sex. Ed. and Evolution. The goal is clear. The connection is clear.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Joseph McCarthy was right most of the time.

How many of the “communist spies” he accused actually turned out to be communist spies? How many people he actually identified (as opposed to those caught by others) were actually arrested and convicted?

Did you know he enabled two real communist spies to escape arrest, when he jumped into an investigation, and accused the wrong people?

At Fort Monmouth, McCarthy accused forty-two people of subversion. Even in that paranoid era, all but two were reinstated, and none of them were guilty of any crime whatsoever. But there were two spies at the facility. McCarthy’s clownish “investigation” was instrumental in their successful cover and later escape to the Soviet Union.

McCarthy’s corrupt and vicious abuse of power wasn’t the worst thing about him; he not only made it possible for these spies to escape, he made anticommunism disreputable for a very long time. The leftist movement in the 60s was largely fueled on people’s distrust of McCarthy, and those who made him possible.

Attempts by Atheistic Communism to undermine the United States has been going on since World War II.

Ed, it’s over. We won. Even China is now communistic only in name. The capitalism there makes our “Robber Baron” period look like peanuts.

 

[The_Barbarian]

O Great Barbarian, if I may bring this conversation back to biology for a moment, I’d like to ask you a question about the Incarnation. I realize you many not be a geneticist,

Biologist. Bacteriologist. And um, well, operations research.

but you may be able to direct me to one who could answer some of these questions. What is your take on the genetics of Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus?

Miraculous. I have no idea where the Y chromosome came from, if that’s what you’re getting to.

(1) Was Jesus haploid or diploid? Could he haver been parthenogenetically haploid?

Nope. Wouldn’t be a “he” if he was. The X chromosome is absolutely essential for human life, but the Y is required to make a male. And I don’t think a haploid human could survive at all. Probably wouldn’t even form an embryo.

(2) If diploid, was the “divine” half of his chromosomal load genetically related to his human semitic ancestry, or not?

We can only speculate, but given that the angels who appeared to humans from time to time weren’t considered unusual in appearance, I suspect that the genetic characteristics were pretty much standard for the area at the time.

(3) If God miraculously constructed a haploid genome that was then syngametically conjoined with Mary’s, was this genome merely a simulacrum of a semiitic haploid genome, or was it real?

Hmmmm… if God miraculously created a human from scratch, would it be merely a simulacrum of a human or would it be real? Don’t really know how to answer questions like that. I guess, if God wanted to make it real, He could.

(4) If it was a real half-genome, from what gene pool might the Holy Spirit have drawn the chromosomes, including Jesus Y chromosome?

If he had a sense of humor, I suppose Joseph would have been as good a source as any (Barbarian nervously anticipates a good smiting)

(5) How would the mechanics of syngamy work?

Not at all, as far as I know. Apparently, there are some tumors that are haploid, or nearly so. But I never heard of a haploid human. Probably not possible.

Of course, if we simply opt for Mary’s miraculous conception of Jesus in terms of “overshadowing by the Holy Spirit,” we could sidestep these genetic issues entirely. However, it seems crucial to safeguard the full humanity of Jesus, in which case these biological questions are necessary, and fascinating.

Yep. I’ve wondered about that, myself. Just can’t say. I have to say, it would be interesting to have a little DNA from Jesus, wouldn’t it?

I don’t know of a theologian who has tacked this issue, and I’d be interested in references if you know of such.

I’ve heard a lot of low-level speculation from people who really didn’t have the theological or scientific stuff to contribute much. I just don’t know.

 

[edwest2]

Getting back to the issue at hand, the Left is fomenting strife, as usual. Evolution is their current weapon of choice. I suppose their motto is: “Have you subverted someone or something today?”

Evolution is the tool by which they hope to wedge open the door to the faithful. The Church has the right take on the issue.

God bless,
Ed

 

[steveandersen]

Gee I miss a day and suddenly we’re talking McCarthy and conspiracies and who knows what

Will a demonstration of Godwin’s law be far off?

 

[drpmjhess]

Yep. I’ve wondered about that, myself. Just can’t say. I have to say, it would be interesting to have a little DNA from Jesus, wouldn’t it?
I’ve heard a lot of low-level speculation from people who really didn’t have the theological or scientific stuff to contribute much. I just don’t know.

Mr. Barbarian, there is a novel by Marty Hewlett, called Sangre de Christo, about what happens when scientists clone some blood of Jesus, He argues that of course, genetic “twinness” does not the person make.

I’m of two minds about the question of the genetics of the Incarnation. On the one hand, it does seem reductionist to take a central miracle of Christianity and subject it to scientific scrutiny. On the other hand – as was pointed out to me at a recent conference where I was chairing a session on Catholicism and science – constantly ducking issues like this does not do much for the credibility of Catholicism in the marketplace of ideas.

I shall continue to ponder this question. Clearly, if Jesus was fully human – as we believe – he had a full human genome. And yet we are also required to believe that this genome came about without the syngamy of sperm and egg. If a simulacrum of a semitic genome had to be created by the Holy Spirit, Joseph’s inherited Davidic genome seems as logical a choice as any. A “virtual sperm” might have fertilized Mary’s actual egg, although the biology of this escapes me. That would also address the paradox that Jesus was supposed to be descended of the House of David without actually being Joseph’s biological son.

Petrus

 

[wildleafblower]

[This is part of my message 244]
Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION ONE “I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”
CHAPTER TWO GOD COMES TO MEET MAN
Article 2 THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

[snip

99 **Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith

, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 **The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.**vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PN.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PN.HTM

[snip]

Here’s what I don’t understand::

Opportunities for Cosmocentric Catholic Doctrine and Practice
Session Chairs – Peter Hess and Linda Gibler
The Evolutionary Epic is a source of both challenge and revelation for religious traditions. In this session, we discussed the implications of the previous days’ presentations for Roman Catholicism. Topics were determined by participants’ interests and included the effects of a new understanding of ourselves in relationship to the Universe on subjects such as scriptural interpretation, Catholic doctrine, sacramental celebration, and spiritual practice. Larger questions considered included the resources and wisdom Catholicism might have to offer in response to the global ecological crisis.
http://www.epicandfutures.org/EE Special Focus.htm#religion
epicandfutures.org/EE%20Special%20Focus.htm#religion

*His [Peter Hess] book on Catholicism and Science, co-authored with Paul Allen of Concordia University, will appear in April, 2008 (Greenwood Press); he is also writing on the religious and ethical implications of the rapidly approaching end of affordable oil. Peter has taught theology, *
epicandfutures.org/EE%20Speakers%20List.htm#Swimme
http://www.epicandfutures.org/EE Speakers List.htm#Swimme

So will the book **Catholicism and Science ** be approved by the Magisterium of the Church? Will this new book that will be coming out in April get into the hands of young minds and distort the truth about the teachings of the Church? I’m concerned about this book PEOPLE! We don’t need another creationist book!

Looks like from the website that Brian Swimme was the INAUGURAL SPEAKER for the conference. I’m not fond of Brian Swimme. In my opinion he tends to support New Age stuff from the 60’s.

I’m of two minds about the question of the genetics of the Incarnation. On the one hand, it does seem reductionist to take a central miracle of Christianity and subject it to scientific scrutiny. On the other hand – as was pointed out to me at a recent conference where I was chairing a session on Catholicism and science – constantly ducking issues like this does not do much for the credibility of Catholicism in the marketplace of ideas.

Petrus

The Pope has already made a statement about the Incarnation. You can locate it on the website of the VATICAN:Holy See. Also, the credibility of Catholicism lies in the fact that as of today there are 2 billion Catholics worldwide. (300,000 of them live within a 10 mile radius of where I live.) We love our POPE and of course I am especially fond of dear Pope John Paul II.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Will a demonstration of Godwin’s law be far off?

I believe that’s already happened.

 

[wildleafblower]

Adding to my

[message 289]

. What’s up with this!!??? The book is already being sold in the UK. (1) but it hasn’t yet been published


Catholicism and Science (Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion) by Peter M.J. Hess and Paul Allen (Hardcover - 30 Mar 2008)
Buy new: £39.94
**Not in stock; order now and we’ll deliver when available **
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Delivery.
amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A57%2Cp_27%3APaul+Hess&page=1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n:57,p_27:Paul+Hess&page=1

I thought the book wasn’t available according to *"His [Peter Hess] book on Catholicism and Science, co-authored with Paul Allen of Concordia University, will appear in April, 2008 (Greenwood Press); he is also writing on the religious and ethical implications of the rapidly approaching end of affordable oil. Peter has taught theology, "

epicandfutures.org/EE%20Speakers%20List.htm#Swimme
http://www.epicandfutures.org/EE Speakers List.htm#Swimme

Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion seems to be the publisher and from what I’ve discovered they promote books for schools, etc.
greenwood.com/catalog/GR2694.aspx

https://www.abc-clio.com