Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

Space exploration has long been a source of fascination. Since the stars first captured our attention, we have obsessed over that vast curtain of darkness that lies beyond our atmosphere. But to what end? What ultimate goal does mankind strive towards, if not the ability to visit and colonize other worlds?

Before we can take our first steps out into the universe, we have to answer a critical question: Do we have the ability to adapt to other environments very different from what we have on Earth to not only survive, but to thrive? Instead of focusing on how we might terraform other planets to suit us, perhaps we should consider how we might use genetic engineering to alter own bodies to suit those other planets.

As a jumping off point, lets consider the feasibility of using the popular gene-editing tool CRISPR to alter human physiology to tolerate parameters outside of Earths norms. If we take a look at common factors that are significant to human health, gleaned from our experience with space exploration, the most obvious choices for our attention are variations in gravity, atmospheric pressure and gas ratios, and solar radiation levels.

If we consider Mars as our template, because of its relative suitability for colonization, then we must compensate for two-thirds less gravity than Earth. A lack of gravity results in a number of ill effects on human health, including a decrease in bone mass and density over time, particularly in the large bones of the lower extremities, as well as the spine. While we do not have research showing the impact of living on a planet with one-third Earths gravity, we do know that we can expect losses in bone density somewhere under 1-2 percent per month, the amount lost in the microgravity environment of space.

For comparison, the elderly lose 1-1.5 percent per month in Earth gravity. Atmospheric pressure that is either too high or too low also results in complications; low atmospheric pressure results in less oxygen available and causes altitude sickness and possible death. Radiation levels from the sun are another variable that is well known to have upper and lower thresholds for optimal human health, where low levels can lead to vitamin D deficiency and high levels increase cell death and cancer.

It would stand to reason that the human body has a minimum threshold for healthy physiology as regards the environment in which it grows, develops and lives. To colonize other planets successfully, we must consider solutions to overcome these thresholds; for example: prostheses, domed colonies recreating an ideal or near ideal environment, or, as this author suggests, the permanent genetic alteration of humanity as a species. This applies to our four chosen variables of gravitational forces, atmospheric pressure, atmospheric gas ratios, and solar radiation levels. While science fiction might have us consider surgical and biomedical prostheses or the more far-fetched use of animal DNA to change ourselves for this purpose, the key to human adaptation for other planets lies in our own genetics and it may well be CRISPR, the use of the enzyme Cas9 for introduction of altered DNA sequences or CRISPRs to existing cells to change how those cells function, that will make this possible.

Human genetic variation provides a veritable treasure trove of adaptations if one looks at the less common but heritable variations that on Earth may seem irrelevant, nonessential, or even maladaptive, but on another planet could be essential to survival. One example of a gene that, with engineering, could help humanity adapt to higher or lower gravity is the LRP5 gene. Recent research into the LRP5 gene shows that mutations of the gene are responsible for both low bone density and elevated bone density in the case of the later, from increased bone formation. A family of individuals in Nebraska carrying the mutation for elevated bone density have never experienced broken bones even well into old age. A whole colony of such individuals or ones engineered to enhance this mutation further could be expected to fare much better during prolonged space travel in zero gravity as well as in the low gravity environment on a planet like Mars.

While an atmospheric pressure and gas makeup very similar to Earths would be required for humans to survive and thrive outside of a spacesuit, Nepals Sherpas, high altitude dwellers in Ethiopia, and the Collas people in the Central Andes , as well as the deep sea divers of Bajau, may provide a solution to living on planets with differences in atmospheric pressure and oxygen availability. The three groups of high-altitude dwellers appear to have separate adaptations for thriving in low oxygen environments. Recent research indicates that there are genetic mutations in each of these groups. Sherpas mutations allow for more efficient use of available oxygen and resistance to ill effects from hypoxia.

Sherpas experience less of an increase in red blood cells than others and therefore avoid the ill-effects caused, such as edema and brain swelling. Sherpas instead have mitochondria in their cells that make more efficient use of the available oxygen, as well as having more efficient anaerobic metabolism in the absence of oxygen. The Collas show genetic differences in genes that control heart morphology, as well as cerebral vascular flow, as a means to withstand an elevated hematocrit in response to high altitude living. The Amhara people living in high altitudes in Ethiopia unlike the Sherpas do have lower oxygen saturation and higher hemoglobin levels compared to lowland dwellers in the region.

Research has yet to determine what adaptation favors the Amhara, but several genes that may play a role have been isolated. Another group, the Bajau of Thailand, may have complementary genetic variations that help them resist hypoxia and survive the high pressures of deep sea diving. Researchers found them to have 50% larger spleens and also a gene, PDE10A, that controls a thyroid hormone thought to affect spleen size. Capitalizing on any of these genetic features would improve our ability to survive with a lower oxygen content atmosphere, perhaps on a newly terraformed Mars or under domes with oxygen rationing.

While we cannot yet determine how comparable an atmosphere we can create on Mars, it stands to reason that achieving an exact replica atmosphere to Earths could be difficult. An atmosphere that lets in less radiation could impede our production of vitamin D, while a thinner atmosphere would admit an excess of radiation. Vitamin D deficiency could perhaps be handled by supplementation, or instead addressed by increasing our cells response to ultraviolet light to increase vitamin D synthesis. On the other side of the coin, a thinner atmosphere opens us up to higher UVR, which would result in higher rates of skin cancer.

It would stand to reason that, while skin pigmentation has high cultural and historical significance, it could make our species more suitable for colonization of high radiation planets; darker skin with larger melanocytes that react proactively to UVA and UVB radiation through tanning and higher antioxidant and free-radical counteraction would be protective and provide an advantage if we are to branch out into our solar system and beyond. At the same time, this solution poses the problem of vitamin D production.

The answer could lie in isolating and using the genes responsible for East Asian populations lower skin pigmentation coupled with lower skin cancer rates than European populations. A study headed by Pennsylvania university has isolated gene mutations responsible for skin pigmentation differences, SLC24A5, MFSD12, OCA2, and HERC2, by studying African, South Asian Indian, and Australo-Melanesian populations, some of which are associated with vitiligo and a form of albinism common in African populations. These mutations that confer higher vitamin D production to Europeans are not present in East Asians, indicating a different mutation responsible, and, while both populations have higher vitamin D production than African populations, Europeans have a 10-20 percent higher rate of cancer than both Africans and East Asians. Further research into these genes could provide targets for CRISPR to modify the protective factors in our skin without sacrificing vitamin D production of potential colonists.

The question remains: is CRISPR a feasible route to including some of these adaptations to create a new, more suitable colonist? To answer this question we look at the current status of CRISPR research.

While some experiments using CRISPR gene editing were conducted in the technologys infancy, including the controversial creation of twin girls in China designed to be resistant to HIV, we are still quite a bit of research away from using CRISPR with high success rates and full confidence, especially considering the repercussions of rushing into human trials, including the death of trial participants and long-term side-effects of cancer, both of which have occurred in gene-therapy trials.

According to information revealed by the FDA and NIH, 691 trial volunteers died in gene-editing trials prior to the tragic and high-profile death of Jesse Gelsinger in a 1999 trial to treat his OTCD, a rare metabolic disorder. The death was blamed on ethical oversights and a rush to make gene editing pan out before it was ready. The result was a long period of gene-editing fear and oversight but also, in the case of James Wilson, director of the University of Pennsylvanias Institute for Human Gene Therapy responsible for the trials that led to Gelsingers death, greater caution in research methodology. He has put safety at the forefront of his research and asserts that even still the risks of gene editing with CRISPR and other methods brings enough risk to justify human trials only for those diseases that are severe and debilitating enough for patients to accept the risks of gene editing.

What does all this mean for our hypothetical future of using CRISPR to edit the DNA of human colonists for space colonization? Is the technology too far off to serve our purpose or fraught with too much risk? Is it beyond our knowledge and skill to accomplish? The answer to each of these questions is undoubtedly, no.

Weve had too much success in treating complex genetic conditions, like the creation of an immune system for Ashanthi Desilva born with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCVID). Weve unlocked too many keys to making gene therapy safer and more effective to discount the possibility of future use for the advancement of our species into harsher environments. While subsequent uses of gene therapy for SCVID resulted in development of Leukemia years later, further advancements in the research have revealed the need to find the best delivery system for each body system. Adeno-associated viruses, and lentiviruses are being looked at in place of the more aggressive adenovirus or retroviruses for delivery of DNA segments both of which are less likely to provoke an immune response and less likely to trigger cell death by way of the B35 gene in healthy cells, and later cancer.

Regardless of the work ahead and the bumpy road that gene therapy has traveled, vast potential remains at our fingertips whether it is through use of CRISPR or future gene therapy tools. It is a sure eventuality that we will one day have these skills at the ready to spread our species into other worlds, well-equipped to survive and thrive in harsher environments.

Cherrie Newman is a writer and student of human reproduction and biological sciences. She is the author of a science fiction novel series entitled Progeny under the pseudonym CL Fors. Follow her on her blogor on Twitter @clfors

Read the original here:
Building 'better' astronauts through genetic engineering could be key to colonizing other planets - Genetic Literacy Project

The Pew Research Center published a fascinating roundup of studies that revealed the opinions of the U.S. public on a number of key science-related issues. The researchers wanted to find out what people thought overall about the role of science and scientists in society, but also to see more specifically how far modern humans are willing to go with genetic engineering and automation.

Theresponses showthat people are generally not as worried as youd think about messing with human genetics but when it comes to implanting technology to enhance bodies, doubts proliferate. A strong uneasiness also pervades responses dealing with robots in workplaces.

The Pew Research Center, which carried out thestudy, pinpointed a specific theme in the findings, citing the loss of human control, especially if such developments would be at odds with personal, religious and ethical values as the key source of hesitancy when people think about future technologies. Proposals that give people more control over tech met with more positive response.

Read the original post

Read the original post:
Infographic: What the US public thinks about tinkering with human genetics - Genetic Literacy Project

What we already know is genome modification of the somatic (vegetative or non-reproductive cells) has begun. The approach is now taking a new turn and further proceeding towards clinical applications. Recent studies suggest that germline genome modification is also taking place. Genetics has further enabled us to turn the tide away from humans suffering from diseases.

As a matter of fact, Genetic Engineering is now allowing us to inculcate desirable traits into human cells, which shall soon become the future of humankind. But, the matter of discussion here is what are the limitations that are needed to be exercised on this genetic evolution aligned with technology? Here, we have managed to come up with almost all the information that has been discovered about genetically engineered human beings. Read on to have an in-depth view of the future of the Homo sapiens.

What do you understand by Genetic Modification?

The process of making changes in the gene make up of an organism is referred to as genetic modification. Gene modification has been taking place in the form of evolution from thousands of years now. And it has so because of selective or controlled breeding of the plants and as well as of the animals. However, with the introduction of biotechnology, this process has fastened up a lot more than we can imagine. Through genetic engineering now we can target specific genes for precise results.

Genetically modified babies:

We are all aware of the fact that livestock is being bred in a certain way that results in improved growth and increased muscle mass. Also, this livestock is specifically resistant against diseases. For instance, we could consider the examples of hybrid chickens that have been bred in such a way, that they show 300-per cent faster growth today. For a few years now the scientists have been experimenting on lab animals to determine different approaches of Biotechnology.

According to the information gathered from the National Human Genome Research Institute, the new form of Biotechnology that has been used to develop CRISPR is going to make modifications to the human genes. The researchers are now trying to find out ways in which the Crispr gene shall be able to treat cancer. Basically, the scientists suggest that CRISPR can edit particular genes in human beings, which could be the leading cause of cancer.

Although the reports obtained are highly controversial, the introduction of genetically engineered human beings is not far away. The researchers are claiming that the tested CRISPR technology will work on the human embryos to delete or edit per se to eliminate the DNA, which could lead to certain diseases.

The ethical dilemma:

The technology has been already evolved, and the gene that could bring about changes in the human genetic system has already been discovered. But, the question is whether this genetic modification should be implemented or not. When it comes to the introduction of any new technology, its merits, demerits, and the intention behind its usage must be measured beforehand.

Here is the original post:
Are genetically designed babies the future of humankind? - NewsPatrolling

Infectious disease experts warn that it's inevitable that a virus will jump from animals to humans and kill tens of millions. Here's everything you need to know:

Why are experts worried?Picture a new viral disease like the Wuhan coronavirus, now called COVID-19, that passes easily from person to person and spreads rapidly around the globe. But unlike COVID-19, which kills perhaps 2 or 3 percent of its victims, this virus kills 20 percent of those infected. Or 40 percent. It might sound like a disaster movie premise (and in fact it was, in 2011's Contagion), but viral disease experts are in wide agreement that such a pandemic is coming, and that it will inflict unimaginable devastation. The only question is when it will hit. Last September, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB), a group convened in 2018 by the World Bank and the World Health Organization, warned of "a very real threat" of a pandemic that would kill 50 million to 80 million people, cost $3 trillion, and create "widespread havoc, instability, and insecurity." We need only look to the recent past to see how dire things can get: The Spanish flu of 1918 killed between 50 million and 100 million (including 675,000 Americans), or about 3 percent of the global population.

Where would such a virus come from?The most likely scenario is a pathogen that jumps from animals to humans and can spread through the air. The outbreak of COVID-19 was traced to a live-animal market in Wuhan, China, where a bat virus appears to have added some genetic material from a soldierfish. Many viral diseases have been traced to animals, including HIV (which originated in chimpanzees), MERS (camels), SARS (probably bats and civet cats), and Ebola (unknown, but probably bats). Last year researchers at Johns Hopkins ran a simulation of a hypothetical coronavirus emerging from a Brazilian pig farm: The result was 65 million dead within 18 months. Another concern is a familiar very deadly virus that mutates, allowing it to spread more easily. The avian flu H5N1, for example, has proven highly lethal but not very communicable so far. The intentional or accidental release of a manmade pathogen is another threat; new genetic engineering tools have made them far easier to create. A laptop captured from ISIS in 2014 contained instructions on how to weaponize plague bacteria.

Why is this more of a problem now?Human population growth. People are encroaching on previously wild areas where unknown viruses and bacteria lurk in animals; those who become infected carry the pathogens back to densely packed cities, where disease is easily spread. The 1998 emergence of the Nipah virus, for example, was linked to deforestation in Malaysia that displaced fruit bats and put them near pig farms. Pigs became infected, and the virus then spread to farmworkers. In the past 50 years, more than 300 pathogens have emerged or re-emerged, including Zika and yellow fever. At the same time, climate change has enabled insects and animals that carry disease to expand their habitats to new regions. Human migratory patterns are a factor as well: The surge in international travel allows viruses to spread around the globe quickly. "We've created an interconnected, dynamically changing world that provides innumerable opportunities to microbes," says Richard Hatchett of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. "If there's weakness anywhere, there's weakness everywhere."

Are we prepared for a major pandemic?Not at all. A report released last October by the Global Health Security Index found glaring gaps in readiness; out of 195 countries surveyed, not one was judged fully prepared to handle a major event. In the U.S. under President Trump, the federal budgets for both research and response preparation have been cut, the National Security Council's global health security unit has been disbanded, and the White House official in charge of pandemic response left his job in 2018 and has not been replaced. We're caught in a "cycle of panic and neglect," World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said. "We throw money at an outbreak, and when it's over, we forget about it and do nothing to prevent the next one."

What needs to be done?Experts say the U.S. and other countries need to spend vastly more money on pandemic preparedness. We need to develop better diagnostic tools, stockpile drugs and vaccines, and fund research into new treatments and vaccine technologies. Above all, there needs to be an international effort to improve sanitation, medical care, and response capability in poorer countries where new diseases are most likely to arise and spread. All of this requires a major change in mindset, say experts. "The world needs to prepare for pandemics the same way it prepares for war," said Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who's invested tens of millions in viral disease research. Humanity's biggest threat, he says, is "not missiles, but microbes."

It's happened many times beforeEpidemics have been a fact of life since the first human settlements. As humans built cities and trade routes, the capacity for pandemics grew, and history is marred by many devastating outbreaks. The earliest on record dates to 430 B.C., when a pestilence that may have been typhoid fever took root in Athens, killing up to two-thirds of the city's population. In A.D. 541, the Justinian plague spread through the Mediterranean world; recurrences over the next two centuries would kill more than 25 percent of the world's population. In the 14th century, another outbreak of plague, called the Black Death driven by fleas that live on rats but can bite humans claimed over 75 million lives, including some 60 percent of the population of Europe, whose cities were piled with reeking corpses. In the 16th and 17th centuries Native Americans were ravaged by smallpox and other diseases brought by European conquerors and colonists; in some areas as much as 90 percent of native populations were wiped out. The pandemic with the greatest number of casualties in history was the Spanish flu of 1918. It infected some 500 million people worldwide a third of the population and killed as many as 100 million.

This article was first published in the latest issue of The Week magazine. If you want to read more like it, try the magazine for a month here.

Read more:
The growing viral threat - The Week

Sam Erickson followed his love of science to outer space one summer during an internship at NASA. He came away fascinated by seeing into deep space by interpreting interaction between matter and infrared radiation.

Now a full-fledged researcher at the University of Minnesotas College of Biological Sciences, the 25-year-old Alaska native is immersed in something far more earthly: killing carp. His fast-moving genetic engineering project is drawing attention from around the country as a potential tool to stop the spread of invasive carp.

I want to make a special fish, Erickson said in a recent interview at Gortner Laboratory in Falcon Heights.

In short, he plans to produce batches of male carp that would destroy the eggs of female carp during spawning season. The modified male fish would spray the eggs as if fertilizing them. But the seminal fluid thanks to DNA editing would instead cause the embryonic eggs to biologically self-destruct in a form of birth control that wouldnt affect other species nor create mutant carp in the wild.

His goal is to achieve the result in a controlled setting using common carp. From there, it will be up to federal regulators and fisheries biologists to decide whether to translate the technology to constrain reproduction of invasive carp in public waters.

What were developing is a tool, Erickson said. If we could make this work, it would be a total game-changer.

Supervised by University of Minnesota assistant professor Michael Smanski, Erickson recently received approval to accelerate his project by hiring a handful of undergraduate assistants. He also traveled last month to Springfield, Ill., to present his research plan to the 2020 Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference.

Were pretty excited about where his project is at, said Nick Phelps, director of the Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center at the U. Things are sure moving fast. Theres excitement and caution.

Ericksons research has received funding from Minnesotas Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. No breeding populations of invasive carp have been detected in Minnesota, but the Department of Natural Resources has confirmed several individual fish captures and the agency has worked to keep the voracious eaters from migrating upstream from the lower Mississippi River. Silver carp, bighead carp and other Asian carps pose a threat to rivers and lakes in the state because they would compete with native species for food and habitat.

Erickson views his birth control project as one possible piece in the universitys integrated Asian carp research approach to keep invasive carp out of state waters. Already the DNR has supported electric barriers and underwater sound and bubble deterrents at key migration points. Another Asian carp-control milestone was closing the Mississippi River lock at Upper St. Anthony Falls in Minneapolis in 2015.

Shooting star

Growing up in Anchorage, Erickson had never heard of Macalester College in St. Paul. But he visited the campus at the urging of a friend and felt like he fit in. He majored in chemistry and worked for a year at 3M in battery technology. But his interests tilted toward the natural world and how to better live in cooperation with nature, he said. Erickson met with Smanski about research opportunities at the university and was hired on the spot.

Smanski, one of the universitys top biological engineers, said carp is not an easy organism to work with and Erickson lacked experience in the field. But he hired the young researcher and assigned him to the carp birth control project because he seemed to have a rare blend of determination and intelligence.

I could tell right away when I was talking to him that he was like a shooting star, Smanski said. If you set a problem in front of him, he wont stop until he solves it Hes taken this farther than anyone else.

In two short years, Smanksi said, Erickson has mastered genetic engineering to the point that his research is starting to bear fruit.

With his new complement of research assistants, Erickson aims to clear his projects first major hurdle sometime this year. The challenge is to model his experiment in minnow-sized freshwater zebrafish. The full genetic code of zebrafish like common carp is already known.

Ericksons task is to make a small change to the DNA sequence of male zebrafish, kind of like inserting a DNA cassette into the fish, he said. During reproduction, the alteration will create lethal overexpression of genes in the embryonic eggs laid by females.

By analogy, Erickson said, the normal mating process is like a symphony with a single conductor turning on genes inside each embryo, Erickson said. But the DNA modification sends in a mess of conductors and the mixed signals destroy each embryo within 24 hours.

In the lab we have to make sure were causing the disruption with no off-target effects, he said. If we can do this in zebrafish, we hope to translate it. They are genetically similar to carp.

Ericksons upcoming experimentation with tank-dwelling live carp could be painfully slow because the fish only mate once a year. But hes working his way around that problem by altering lighting conditions and changing other stimuli in his lab to stagger when batches of fish are ready to reproduce.

The birth control process projected to be affordable for fisheries managers if it receives approval is already proven to work in yeast and insects. And Erickson said the same principles of molecular genetics have been used to create an altered, fast-growing version of Atlantic salmon approved for human consumption in the U.S.

Were not building a new carp from the bottom up but its kind of a whole new paradigm, so we have to get it done right, he said.

View original post here:
Solution for a scourge? University of Minnesota scientist is progressing with carp-killer tool - Minneapolis Star Tribune

By John Stonestreet, Christian Post Guest Columnist | Tuesday, March 03, 2020 A Catholic faithful participates in the traditional Ash Wednesday service at the 20 de Julio Church in Bogota, Colombia, February 10, 2016. Wednesday marked the first day of the 40-day period of Lent during which Roman Catholics are called to make some form of sacrifice, usually by fasting for a short period of time. | (Photo: Reuters/John Vizcaino)

As Western culture becomes more and more secular, or to use Charles Taylors fascinating word disenchanted, traditions and practices once largely normal seem more and more strange. Large families, choosing church over Little League, or smudged foreheads just arent as normal as they used to be, and the second glances or raised eyebrows they create reveal more than a confusion about the thing itself.

In fact, Im not sure there is a Christian observance that more directly collides with the widely accepted values of secularism than the imposition of the ashes, a tradition that goes back about ten centuries and marks the beginning of the season of Lent on the Church calendar.

Like Advent, the season of Lent is about preparation. Before Christmas, our Christian forebears thought it wise to prepare a bit, and that by diving deeply into Old Testament promises and prophecies wed better understand the birth of Christ in the full context of redemptive history. So too, in Lent, our Christian forbears thought it wise to prepare for Holy week, especially for celebrating the resurrection on Easter Sunday.

A key distinction is that Lenten disciplines, beginning with Ash Wednesdays reminder that You are dust and to dust you shall return, place our celebration of resurrection in the context of our humanity, both ourmortalityand ourfallenness. Even if the church calendar and its accompanying disciplines is not part of your church tradition, these two aspects of our humanity deserve our focused, intentional, and extended reflection.

Of course, most Christians would quickly reply that,of course,sin and death affect us all post-Eden. The problem is, in a secular culture, these beliefs that are crucial to a Christian worldview can be subtly secularized in our own hearts and minds.

Years ago, when my grandfather was dying, he suffered terribly for three or four months. In sorrow, I asked my pastor, Why doesnt God just take him? I expected him to say something along the lines of, Well, God has His ways, and His own timing, but instead he said something Ill never forget: Because your grandfather needs to know his mortality before he meets his maker.

What Ponce de Leon once sought in the waters of a Fountain of Youth, we still seek today via genetic engineering, eugenics, and other technologies. In other words, we seek control over this world and even over death itself.

Despite our search, death remains the universal problem of the human condition, one that afflicts us all. A secular culture is led by the reality of death to fear death itself, so that we either attempt to control death or distract ourselves from the thought of it. As a result, we learn to live life in light of the moment, rather than eternity.

The reality of death should, instead, remind us to fear God. That after death, we will meet the maker of life, is worth pondering, not just at the moment of death, but constantly throughout our lives.

Theologian Craig Gay warned in his book The Way of the Modern World that many of us who believe in God live as if God were largely irrelevant to most of life. The reminder of our mortality in the words, You are but dust and to dust you shall return, is a wonderful antidote for what he called practical atheism.

Just like with the idea ofmortality,our understanding of our ownsinfulnessis also under threat of being secularized in our own minds. In a culture committed, in the name of freedom, to removing the categories of sin or guilt, one quick to give away nearly universal get-out-of-jail-free cards in the name of sexual freedom, too many Christians lose any abhorrence for that which ought shock and shame us.

Perhaps this is why the salvation brought by Christs life, death, and resurrection is so often described as a wonderful example of love and sacrifice or how to gain purpose and perspective, but so rarely in the terms of judicial forgiveness and cosmic victory that Paul and Peter and Jesus Himself so often used.

Being confronted with our ownsinfulnessis certainly no fun, but God graciously does it. After all, the cruelest thing to tell someone whos not okay is that they are, as both secularized cultures and secularized churches too often do. Repentance is a gift, the only way forward for those on the edge of the moral abyss. Its proof that God is kind, the Scriptures say.

We just dont hear these things often enough. So, thank God for Lent.

Originally posted at breakpoint.org

More here:
Lent, the reality of death, and fearing God - Christian Post