Re: christian schools and doctrinal issues (was: Death penalty)

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
> That raises a question I hadn't thought about.  Was Mary merely the 
> vessel into which God placed a miraculously formed zygote or did He 
> actually impregnate Mary, using her egg and miraculously fertilizing 
> it?  The latter would be the only "taking flesh" I could see, while 
> children take nurishment from their mothers I don't know that they take 
> any flesh, in the literal sense, except the egg and in that case the 
> child takes flesh from his father as well in the form of the sperm. 

Sounds like you're talking about genetics, the code in the DNA.  I was 
talking about the actual physical *stuff*, the nourishment as you call it. 
The egg and the sperm are pretty small -- microscopic, even -- so in order 
for that egg and sperm to grow into anything resembling a baby, much less 
an adult, the zygote needs to acquire lots and lots of biological *stuff*. 
(Incidentally, I believe this is why Mormons believe that life begins at 
implantation, rather than conception: merely having the genetic code from 
the two parents does not make a baby, I guess, in their view.)

> And not that you were suggesting it but children in the womb don't share 
> a blood supply with their mothers.  While there is the provision of 
> nutrients and oxygen I believe that is done through the placenta.  
> Otherwise children would have to have the same blood type as their 
> mother and that certainly isn't the case.  Fearfully and wonderfully 
> made indeed!

Well, I can't speak with any authority on the exact details.

I do believe that there is a difference between a newborn's blood and the 
blood of an older child, because the newborn's blood has been in contact 
with the mother or something (I remember reading about this when I read 
the book that A Cry in the Dark was based on; the blood left after the 
dingo took the baby was part of the evidence that people were pointing 
to).  But the exact nature of that contact, and the exact nature of the 
newborn blood, is not something that I am any sort of expert on.

But beyond that, you have the simple fact that the zygote is microscopic 
and then, nine months later, it isn't.  At the very least, the baby has 
been taking stuff from the mother over the course of those nine months; 
the extra body mass doesn't just come from out of thin air.  And I believe 
the baby puts stuff in the mother's system too, certainly on a hormonal 
level at least.  (The placenta, genetically speaking at least, is part of 
the child's body and not part of the mother's body.)

> I also have thought that her remaining a virgin was asking too much of 
> Joseph.  He manned up and stayed betrothed to her inspite of how it had 
> to have looked and to think he was rewarded with "nope you still ain't 
> gettin' any" seems so unfair.   

Well, if he was an elderly widower (as most Orthodox believe), then he had 
already "had some" and his interest in Mary needn't have been sexual.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot