1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, even if a male were genetically engineered into a sin-free form, he would still produce sperm cells that are necessarily sin-ridden? How is this sin content being imparted to the sperm, if not by the male's genetic makeup? On Page 1 you stated that the sin nature is "passed on through the genetic contribution from the male." But now, given this, it seems as though the genetic contribution from the male is at best a proximate consideration.
As stated, man is not capable of producing sin-free sperm.
As stated, man is not capable of producing sin-free sperm.
Well, the typical male of suitable age is constantly producing sperm cells. If you're right and these sperm cells are not sin-free, then under your view, don't we have at least a prima facie obligation to engage in practices that minimize sperm count within the body? Do you think the frequency at which a given male masturbates carries moral import? Does the decision of whether to wear boxers or briefs have moral consequence?
Originally posted by LemonJelloUnlike the Sphynx, I can laugh. And yet, I don't. Strange.
So, even if a male were genetically engineered into a sin-free form, he would still necessarily produce sin-ridden sperm cells? How is this sin content being imparted to the sperm, if not by the male's genetic makeup? On Page 1 you stated that the sin nature is "passed on through the genetic contribution from the male." But now, given this, it seems as ...[text shortened]... oral import? Does the decision of whether to wear boxers or briefs have moral consequence?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, my interest here is strictly in the vein of morbid fascination with the ridiculous workings of the Freaky mind.
Unlike the Sphynx, I can laugh. And yet, I don't. Strange.
For one, there are no good reasons to think that sin is anything more than a word without referent. For two, even if sinful behavior exists, there are no good reasons to think there is any necessary connection between sinful behavior and morally wrong behavior. For three, this notion of sin nature as something that resides in cell structure is just...LOL.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut in conceding that 'sin nature' has a corporeal manifestation, it necessarily means it is subject
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.
to corporeal manipulation. Imagining (like DoctorScribbles) that we develop the capacity to
manipulate even single genes (or even single nucleotide pairs), it is within the realm of possibility
that, upon identifying the corporeal manifestation of the 'sin nature,' one is capable of removing it
or making it 'sinless nature.'
The problem is totally moot if it is a non-corporeal thing (like, say, the soul).
In dealing with the non-corporeal theological topics, even if we agree that the soul is conferred as
the infant takes its first breath, there is no reason to believe that the sin nature isn't ontologically
bestowed at conception (through the father, as per Scripture). There is no need to infer that it is
a corporeal thing, and there is a lot to recommend against it (given the increased amount that we
know about genes and the like).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou still haven't solved the problem of female clones of a female 'parent'.
In dealing with the non-corporeal theological topics, even if we agree that the soul is conferred as
the infant takes its first breath, there is no reason to believe that the sin nature isn't ontologically
bestowed at conception (through the father, as per Scripture).
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf two lesbians merged their eggs to make a new child, would it be free of sin? Maybe that's how the Second Coming will occur.
The sin nature resides in the cell structure, passed on through the genetic contribution from the male. The chromosomes that the woman passes on are free of the sin nature via the reproduction process.
There was an entire thread dedicated to this line of thought previously.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI 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.
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.
You need to brush up on your English then.
By your reasoning, no one should refer to their favourite deity as God, Allah etc...
1 edit
I have forgotten my genetics, can someone help me here. I thought that a single DNA strand (Y chromosome) is responsible for the difference between male and female and that it is not passed on to females. So it is theoretically possible for a man to not pass on any genes from his father to his daughter. Is this correct? If so is the 'sin nature' regenerated and assigned to new genes at each generation?
[edit] I just rethought that one. There is no single gene (or set of genes) that is passed on to female offspring from a male parent but never passed from a female parent to a male offspring. So it is a requirement of freak's theory that the 'original sin' gene is either a different one each time (ie the sin hops from gene to gene) or that the process of creating eggs some how washes the sin out of the genes.
Interestingly the opposite is true (for non-nuclear DNA). There are parts of the cell which are only passed on through the maternal line but are passed on to male offspring as well. Maybe its the women to blame after all! Didn't eve give sin to Adam not the other way around?
Originally posted by Nemesiothere is no reason to believe that the sin nature isn't ontologically
But in conceding that 'sin nature' has a corporeal manifestation, it necessarily means it is subject
to corporeal manipulation. Imagining (like DoctorScribbles) that we develop the capacity to
manipulate even single genes (or even single nucleotide pairs), it is within the realm of possibility
that, upon identifying the corporeal manifestation of the 's ...[text shortened]... gainst it (given the increased amount that we
know about genes and the like).
Nemesio
bestowed at conception (through the father, as per Scripture).
Then the problem comes down to transmission: how does it take place, if not physical. Further, how can we assume it non-physical when the Bible specifically points to the physicality of the woman's seed (in the provision of the promised savior)?
Originally posted by rwingettHe's probably completely sterile after the life he chose. Make that hopefully sterile. Can you imagine that guy with a daughter?
Sin-free sperm? Priceless! I'll bet Ron Jeremy's sperm has twice the sin content of the average man on the street.
"Okay, sweetheart, today let's talk about the money shot, and how important it is to the production value of the film."