Originally posted by DoctorScribblesif youre talking about being "born into sin", i dont think you are a sinner when you are born but that means that since everything is predetermined God knows that one day you will sin.
It is said that people are born with original sin. Is this precise?
Is original sin something that is conferred at birth or conception? Are human embryos sinful?
Originally posted by NemesioTechincally speaking, aren't all words in some sense or another 'scientific?' Is there a non-scientific word or phrase that would adequately/accurately describe genetic information? Or, do you prefer the traditional language of 'seed of the man?'
I love when you use scientific terms for non-scientific things. It makes you sound authoritative.
Unless they've isolated the 'sin nature' organelle, protein, or gene (or does it reside in the protoplasm)...
Nemesio
You assume that we know everything about the inner-world, or that the scientific process is capable of revealing everything. That assumption/faith is an ill-placed and (potentially) fatal error.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, I don't assume that.
You assume that we know everything about the inner-world, or that the scientific process is capable of revealing everything. That assumption/faith is an ill-placed and (potentially) fatal error.
In fact, you'll note that it is you making the assumption. You are asserting that something
which is hitherto untested and unobserved resides somewhere undetected in the 'cell structure'
and 'passed in the man's seed.'
A scientific claim would have an element of proof. Do you have that?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAll my mitochrondria are illegal cellural immigrants. I would evict them, but they all the jobs by other organelles couldn't be bothered doing.
I love when you use scientific terms for non-scientific things. It makes you sound authoritative.
Unless they've isolated the 'sin nature' organelle, protein, or gene (or does it reside in the protoplasm)...
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTechincally speaking, aren't all words in some sense or another 'scientific?' No!
Techincally speaking, aren't all words in some sense or another 'scientific?' Is there a non-scientific word or phrase that would adequately/accurately describe genetic information? Or, do you prefer the traditional language of 'seed of the man?'
You assume that we know everything about the inner-world, or that the scientific process is capable of revealing everything. That assumption/faith is an ill-placed and (potentially) fatal error.
Techincally Technically
You assume that we know everything about the inner-world, or that the scientific process is capable of revealing everything. That assumption/faith is an ill-placed and (potentially) fatal error.
We assume *you* know nothing
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou should do what they do in the country of plantae: build a extra-cellular matrix around
All my mitochrondria are illegal cellural immigrants. I would evict them, but they all the jobs by other organelles couldn't be bothered doing.
your cells to keep the illegals out! Some use cellulose, but I suggest lignin for its longevity.
Originally posted by NemesioToo late. My mitochondria are now is a position of absolute power. My cells can't survive without them.
You should do what they do in the country of plantae: build a extra-cellular matrix around
your cells to keep the illegals out! Some use cellulose, but I suggest lignin for its longevity.
Originally posted by NemesioFor not assuming 'that,' you still draw conclusions which rely on 'that.' Just because we are not able to observe the sin nature in the cell structure doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Such shortsightedness is what keeps knowledge at bay and people in darkness.
No, I don't assume that.
In fact, you'll note that it is you making the assumption. You are asserting that something
which is hitherto untested and unobserved resides somewhere undetected in the 'cell structure'
and 'passed in the man's seed.'
A scientific claim would have an element of proof. Do you have that?
Nemesio
If I were making the assumption, all of my thinking would be based upon faith in the scientific process for total revelation; my thinking clearly is not based on such limited perspective.
What I have answered to the question given is the biblical position for the question of original sin, using language perspicuous for a contemporary reader. With what part did you have the most trouble?
Originally posted by AgergA little tidbit for ya: simply by using the following keystrokes, you can eliminate the need for asteriks as emphasis in your typing:
[b]Techincally speaking, aren't all words in some sense or another 'scientific?' No!
Techincally Technically
You assume that we know everything about the inner-world, or that the scientific process is capable of revealing everything. That assumption/faith is an ill-placed and (potentially) fatal error.
We assume *you* know nothing[/b]
[
i
]
[
/
i
]
Good luck!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut you can't observe 'sin nature' anywhere. Why assume it's part of the cell? Why not
For not assuming 'that,' you still draw conclusions which rely on 'that.' Just because we are not able to observe the sin nature in the cell structure doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Such shortsightedness is what keeps knowledge at bay and people in darkness.
If I were making the assumption, all of my thinking would be based upon faith in the scientifi ...[text shortened]... uage perspicuous for a contemporary reader. With what part did you have the most trouble?
part of the soul (something else we cannot observe)? Or perhaps part of the psyche?
You assert it belongs in the cell, but you admit you can't show it. So, what you meant to
say was 'I believe (or my faith tells me) that sin nature resides in the cell.'
I understand the Biblical presentation. Assuming for a moment that the Biblical explanation
is necessarily true (I'm willing to play ball), there is no reason to believe that it has anything
whatsoever to do with cells. Sin nature could just as easily (or perhaps more easily) be
something utterly apart from the corporeal, just as the soul is.
The only part 'with which I had trouble' was (yet another of) your bald assertions that give
a pseudo-scientific understanding of things pertaining to faith. I know why you do it: to give
yourself the illusion of credibility (just like your disastrous foray into philosophy). Sadly, you are
no longer the medium-sized fish in the very, very small pond.
Nemesio