Original Sin

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

But if an engineered male lacks sin nature due to removal of the responsible DNA (as per the Dr.'s example, which you admit is nomologically possible), then why would this male's sperm not be sin-free?

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

My girlfriend loves this theory. Now she's telling me she's without sin. Thanks alot. 😠

Originally posted by LemonJello
But if an engineered male lacks sin nature due to removal of the responsible DNA (as per the Dr.'s example, which you admit is nomologically possible), then why would this male's sperm not be sin-free?

As stated, man is not capable of producing sin-free sperm.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
My girlfriend loves this theory. Now she's telling me she's without sin. Thanks alot. 😠

As much as I hate to crush the dreams of the fairer sex, because she has a human father, she, too, is tainted with the sin nature. And, as stated, women are able to produce a sin-free ovum every month. If it cheers her at all, tell her it's the man who fouls it up every time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As stated, man is not capable of producing sin-free sperm.

Is is possible for man to be capable of identifying the portion of the genetic code responsible for the sin nature?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is is possible for man to be capable of identifying the portion of the genetic code responsible for the sin nature?

I doubt it, but then again, I didn't think 'Prison Break' would last beyond one season, either.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I doubt it, but then again, I didn't think 'Prison Break' would last beyond one season, either.

Let us suppose that man could in fact attain a comprehension of the genetic code in question. What is the mechanism that would prevent him from applying that knowledge to the end of tinkering with the code so that it would no longer yield the sin nature?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Let us suppose that man could in fact attain a comprehension of the genetic code in question. What is the mechanism that would prevent him from applying that knowledge to the end of tinkering with the code so that it would no longer yield the sin nature?

Again, possible in theory; impossible in application.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, possible in theory; impossible in application.

By what mechanism is the application impossible? If geneticists apply the same processes to the problem at hand as they have to other successful manipulations, what will prevent their success?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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.

Once again, assuming a normative theological hermeneutic, I have
no objection to the 'sin nature' being passed through the seed of
the male. To do so would be to misread multiple citations of literal
and metaphorical OT Scriptural passages.

But, again, I see no reason to associate this sin nature with the
actual physical seed itself; by contrast, I think it makes more
sense to approach it dualisitically -- there is a physical seed and a
non-physical sin nature. I would do so for at least two reasons: first,
a person's nature -- his/her psyche or soul -- is pretty clearly non-
corporeal, and I would tend to describe 'sin nature' as a 'stain' upon
that soul; and second because there is no scientific reason to believe
that sin nature physically exists anywhere, for, if it did, then (as
Doctor Bonum, then there exists the possibility of removing that
physical aspect and creating 'sin natureless' sperm, which I think is a
theologically laughable concept.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
By what mechanism is the application impossible? If geneticists apply the same processes to the problem at hand as they have to other successful manipulations, what will prevent their success?

They would first have to isolate that part of the genetic code that is affected by the sin nature. I don't see anything remotely akin to this occuring anytime soon, or ever.

Call it a modern-day Tower of Babel.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Once again, assuming a normative theological hermeneutic, I have
no objection to the 'sin nature' being passed through the seed of
the male. To do so would be to misread multiple citations of literal
and metaphorical OT Scriptural passages.

But, again, I see no reason to associate this sin nature with the
actual physical seed itself; by cont ...[text shortened]... 'sin natureless' sperm, which I think is a
theologically laughable concept.

Nemesio

I agree that the sin nature is a stain upon the soul, created perfect by God. I also agree that it is a theological impossibility to consider man capable of manufacturing perfection. Conceptual, yes.

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?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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?

I'd hazard a guess that the gene is as predominant as the one which makes a human, human.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'd hazard a guess that the gene is as predominant as the one which makes a human, human.

I don't see how that would be relevant to my question. Is it your claim that predominant genes are not subject to mutation?