Original Sin

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
God doesnt send people to hell for sins, you repent.

You failed to address what I said. You said everything was predetermined.

Thus, it is predetermined that some people will go to hell.

This makes God a super-great guy, setting up Creation for all those people in agony right now!

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
But you can't observe 'sin nature' anywhere. Why assume it's part of the cell? Why not
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 under ...[text shortened]... dly, you are
no longer the medium-sized fish in the very, very small pond.

Nemesio

But you can't observe 'sin nature' anywhere. Why assume it's part of the cell? Why not part of the soul (something else we cannot observe)? Or perhaps part of the psyche?
If you understood the biblical presentation as you assert, these questions wouldn't now be asked. In fact, asking them reveals an appalling lack of biblical understanding of very basic concepts. I find this surprsing, given your broad knowledge of biblical passages and history--- albeit from a dubious perspective. It appears as though your 'knowledge' of things biblical is more topical than anything else.

So, what you meant to say was 'I believe (or my faith tells me) that sin nature resides in the cell.'
Silly me. Thanks for setting the mood for me. And here, I thought Doc was asking for the scientific perspective on original sin. I can be so dull to nuance sometimes!

I know why you do it: to give yourself the illusion of credibility...
You know, you spend years doing your best to cover your insecurities, go to painstaking ends to hide your lack of higher education, and -BAM!- in one sentence, someone like you comes along and lays it all bare. I knew I couldn't run for ever. I guess I should thank you: now that the ruse is up, I can go back to being a hillbilly. Or, maybe I'll just become a choir director somewhere.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
f you understood the biblical presentation as you assert, these questions wouldn't now be asked.

I have no objection to your position on sin nature; I don't agree with it, taking a different
theological interpretation, but I understand how you get there.

What I do object to is your assertion that 'it resides in the cell structure.' There is no Biblical
reason to believe that (granting your theological hermeneutic) sin nature resides anywhere
corporeal.

Silly me. Thanks for setting the mood for me. And here, I thought Doc was asking for the scientific perspective on original sin. I can be so dull to nuance sometimes!

And yet you provided one!

You know, you spend years doing your best to cover your insecurities, go to painstaking ends to hide your lack of higher education, and -BAM!- in one sentence, someone like you comes along and lays it all bare. I knew I couldn't run for ever. I guess I should thank you: now that the ruse is up, I can go back to being a hillbilly. Or, maybe I'll just become a choir director somewhere.

I did have to laugh at this one. I will grant that you are probably very funny in real life.
I do stand by my comment despite the comic light you shed on it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The sin nature resides in the cell structure, passed on through the genetic contribution from the male.

Suppose this hypothesis were in fact true.

Wouldn't it then be conceivable that a sin-free human could be genetically engineered, simply by properly manipulating or removing the portion of DNA responsible for the sin nature?

And if such a human could be engineered,
1) Do you really think it is the case that he wouldn't sin?
2) Provided he didn't sin, would he need salvation, or could he get to heaven without believing in Jesus?

Additionally, you presumably believe in genetic mutation. Isn't it conceivable that the sin nature genes could or possibly may have already mutated away? With billions of people born in the world, isn't it conceivable that a few have been born without the appropriate genes for the sin nature, due to the same sort of mistakes in the reproduction process that cause other freaks?

Finally, isn't your whole theory nonsense, from both a scientific and theological perspective, in light of these questions and the implications of whatever answers you have for them?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Suppose this hypothesis were in fact true.

Wouldn't it then be conceivable that a sin-free human could be genetically engineered, simply by properly manipulating or removing the portion of DNA responsible for the sin nature?

And if such a human could be engineered,
1) Do you really think it is the case that he wouldn't sin?
2) Provided he did ...[text shortened]... e, in light of these questions and the implications of whatever answers you have for them?

You are write, and even the Bible story imply something different.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You failed to address what I said. You said everything was predetermined.

Thus, it is predetermined that some people will go to hell.

This makes God a super-great guy, setting up Creation for all those people in agony right now!

Nemesio

oh i see. but what makes you believe he has sent anyone to hell? as far as we know, the only ones in hell is lucifer and his followers of that time, supposedly he had many followers that went with him right? what should he have done then? should he have killed them before they committed their sins? that seems worse, theres nothing God can do about the rebellious ones like lucifer.

Originally posted by rwingett
If children are not accountable for their 'sin nature', then why did the Lord drown so many of them in the great genocidal flood? Why did he slay the first-born of Egypt?

Would you like more questions? Why did God allow his people to languish and die in Egypt for 500 years? Why did God allow his prophets to be persectued and killed over the centuries? Why did God allow his own Son to die on the cross? Why did God allow the disciples of Christ to all be martyred except one? Troubling, no?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Ironically, by your criteria, the severly retarded and demented would be sin free.

I only said that under certain conditions one may not be accoutable. It is like being in a court of law and having you be judged as "unfit" to undergo a trial. If you have no mental capacity to understand what you have done or why you are being put on trial, why have a trial? This does not negate what they have done, however.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A little tidbit for ya: simply by using the following keystrokes, you can eliminate the need for asteriks as emphasis in your typing:
[
i
]
[
/
i
]
Good luck!

Entering the following keystrokes: [ return i return ] return [ return / return i return ] would be silly!



*edit* Put some edits in for ya...fire away!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But you can't observe 'sin nature' anywhere. Why assume it's part of the cell? Why not part of the soul (something else we cannot observe)? Or perhaps part of the psyche?
If you understood the biblical presentation as you assert, these questions wouldn't now be asked. In fact, asking them reveals an appalling lack of biblical understanding of v go back to being a hillbilly. Or, maybe I'll just become a choir director somewhere.[/b]

biblical
Biblical (learn about capitalisation of proper nouns)

I guess I should thank you: now that the ruse is up, I can go back to being a hillbilly.
Good idea!


*edit* more edits!!!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]f you understood the biblical presentation as you assert, these questions wouldn't now be asked.

I have no objection to your position on sin nature; I don't agree with it, taking a different
theological interpretation, but I understand how you get there.

What I do object to is your assertion that 'it res ...[text shortened]... in real life.
I do stand by my comment despite the comic light you shed on it.

Nemesio[/b]

There is no Biblical reason to believe that (granting your theological hermeneutic) sin nature resides anywhere corporeal.
Granted, the biblical terminology was written to accomodate the thinking of people contemporary to its time, and as such, does not contain the term 'cell structure' or the like. However, the Bible is very clear how the sin nature is passed onto the progeny of Adam: through his seed.

As we know that through the seed of the woman the savior would come and that, further, that savior must needs to be perfect, it stands to reason there is something unique about female oogenesis.

Once a month, instead of producing four ova, the primary oocyte with 46 chromosomes yields only one ovum with 23 chromosomes that are totally free of the sin nature. In the first meiotic division of the primary oocyte, unneeded cell matter and the contamination of the sin nature are thrown off into non-functional polar bodies which then disintegrate. Thusly with the second meiotic division, so that all sin nature contamination is discarded with the polar bodies... leaving one large, uncontaminated ovum ready for fertilization.


The Bible teaches us that God provides soul life immediately at the moment of birth (not conception). What God creates is perfect, despite what man does to diminish that perfection via his volition.

It doesn't take too large of a logic leap to conclude that this was the only way the savior could have been conceived via the fallen human race.

And yet you provided one!
Not really. I provided the biblical perspective in language that all the smarties around here can understand.

I did have to laugh at this one.
Thanks. I appreciate that.

I do stand by my comment despite the comic light you shed on it.
More than you may know (or I will typically let on) your faithfulness is appreciated and respected. In the (almost) year that I've been here, your professional presentation has never waivered. While there is little we agree on respective of the horn-locking topics in which we engage, you are one of a small handful of people capable of provoking thought and challenging preconceptions. I appreciate that.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Suppose this hypothesis were in fact true.

Wouldn't it then be conceivable that a sin-free human could be genetically engineered, simply by properly manipulating or removing the portion of DNA responsible for the sin nature?

And if such a human could be engineered,
1) Do you really think it is the case that he wouldn't sin?
2) Provided he did ...[text shortened]... e, in light of these questions and the implications of whatever answers you have for them?

Wouldn't it then be conceivable that a sin-free human could be genetically engineered, simply by properly manipulating or removing the portion of DNA responsible for the sin nature?
Absolutely conceivable; absolutely impossible. Also, see my post about the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only God is able to provide perfection in this fallen world. The Holy Spirit contributed the chromosomes necessary for the savior's conception.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Absolutely conceivable; absolutely impossible.

Could you clarify, please?

Is the Doctor's scenario logically possible? Is it nomologically possible?

Originally posted by Agerg
biblical
Biblical (learn about capitalisation of proper nouns)

I guess I should thank you: now that the ruse is up, I can go back to being a hillbilly.
Good idea!


*edit* more edits!!![/b]

I think you're wrong on this one. I am fairly confident that the accepted and regular use of the word does not capitalize it when used as such.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Could you clarify, please?

Is the Doctor's scenario logically possible? Is it nomologically possible?

It is possible as a nomological conception, but remains an impossible proposition owing to man's inability to produce sin-free sperm.