Original Sin

Originally posted by Agerg
[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.
You need to brush up on your English then.

By your reasoning, no one should refer to their favourite deity as God, Allah etc...[/b]

And by your reasoning, if one is acting in accord with biblical concepts, they are leading a 'Godly life,' instead of a 'godly life.' I think a quick referral to any writing guide will bear my point out.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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)?

But so far you have not suggested a possible physical mechanism either. There has to be at least one non-physical process (such as egg cleansing) taking place somewhere in your hypothesis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But so far you have not suggested a possible physical mechanism either. There has to be at least one non-physical process (such as egg cleansing) taking place somewhere in your hypothesis.

I contend that it is all physical, with exception of the impartation of the soul. The physical seed of the man passes on the sin nature to all offspring. Both man and woman are tainted, but through oogenesis the woman's body is able to produce an perfect ovum, via meiotic cell division and polar bodies.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
If I were a proponent of Catholic doctrine, I would proceed as follows.

One should distinguish between the predisposition to sin and the act of sinning itself. Embryos, like babies, possess the predisposition to sin (= are burdened with original sin), but do not yet act sinfully (= cannot yet be properly characterized as "sinful"😉. Their predisposit ...[text shortened]... in sinful acts.

Moreover, original sin is not conferred; it is instrinsic to human nature.

Good, clean explanation. Gets my rec.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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)?

Within the Christian framework, I think we both agree that the soul is non-corporeal; there is no
'soul' gene or chemical or something physically testable (if we don't, then this is where we are
disagreeing). If we think of the 'sin nature' as a stain upon the soul (which is also consistent with
Christian theology, wherein the believer is ironically washed clean in the blood of the Lamb), then
we can assume that the stain, as well, is also non-corporeal by asking what sounds like a
nonsensical question: how could something physical stain something non-corporeal?

Consequently, transmission could be in a similar vein as soul transmission; the man imparts a
non-corporeal stain through his seed which (in your understanding of theology) is imparted upon the
soul at birth.

As for the second question, could you give me the citation for that (I don't know to which Scriptural
passage you are referring)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And by your reasoning, if one is acting in accord with biblical concepts, they are leading a 'Godly life,' instead of a 'godly life.' I think a quick referral to any writing guide will bear my point out.

And by your reasoning, if one is acting in accord with biblical concepts, they are leading a 'Godly life,' instead of a 'godly life.' I think a quick referral to any writing guide will bear my point out.

Well firstly you are just as wrong about this as you are about most other things. Secondly (this might be tricky stuff for you), To say one is acting 'godly' attributes to a person the behaviour of one who is pious/ believes in God. To say 'Godly' on the otherhand would attribute to something the behaviour of God itself.

'Biblical' is the adjective form of the proper noun 'Bible' and so it should be capitalised.

Originally posted by Agerg
And by your reasoning, if one is acting in accord with biblical concepts, they are leading a 'Godly life,' instead of a 'godly life.' I think a quick referral to any writing guide will bear my point out.

Well firstly you are just as wrong about this as you are about most other things. Secondly (this might be tricky stuff for you), To say one is acting ...[text shortened]... l' is the adjective form of the proper noun 'Bible' and so it should be capitalised.[/b]

Well firstly you are just as wrong about this as you are about most other things.
Hopefully (for your case in other matters), you are wrong on at least this account. However, the fact remains that you are wrong, and I am thoroughly right.

Again, I think a quick referral to any writing guide will bear my point out.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I contend that it is all physical, with exception of the impartation of the soul. The physical seed of the man passes on the sin nature to all offspring. Both man and woman are tainted, but through oogenesis the woman's body is able to produce an perfect ovum, via meiotic cell division and polar bodies.

So do you think that scientists will one day identify what exact process in the "meiotic cell division and polar bodies" is cleaning out the original sin and thus apply it to a sperm as well? Or is it an unfathomable process and if so, then how do you know it has anything to do with polar bodies at all?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you think that scientists will one day identify what exact process in the "meiotic cell division and polar bodies" is cleaning out the original sin and thus apply it to a sperm as well? Or is it an unfathomable process and if so, then how do you know it has anything to do with polar bodies at all?

I'm ambivalent on the issues. While the functioning of the natural world can be expressed in natural and formulaic terms, there are more than a few concepts which are decidedly un-concrete.

Distance doesn't seem to be the only obstacle, for some reason. It was only recently that DNA existence and role were discovered... and our discovery here follows the usual pattern of physical knowledge: when we think we've finally crested the apex of understanding of any particular subject, we're faced once again with yet another dark valley.

I think a more likely scenario is as follows: what remains to be observed scientifically in the meiotic process will prove to be 'hidden in plain sight,' as it were; something that was always there but repeatedly overlooked. With respect to "apply[-ing that knowledge] to the sperm as well," the nearest analogy I can think of is that of the wick and the flame: the flame is too dependent upon the wick to survive the separation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
...the nearest analogy I can think of is that of the wick and the flame: the flame is too dependent upon the wick to survive the separation.

Although it is a lovely analogy, you don't have any scientific knowledge to support this analogy's
validity; you are just guessing, and you are forced to guess because you insist (again without any
scientific knowledge) that sin nature exists in a corporeal fashion.

It stands to reason, however, that if someone (say like Jesus) lacked this sin nature, then the flame
can indeed survive without the wick. And, if it is physically manipulatable, then it is possible to
replicate. This means that your position necessarily entails that it is possible to created people
without sin natures (even though we lack the scientific capacity to do so at the present).

Originally posted by Nemesio
Although it is a lovely analogy, you don't have any scientific knowledge to support this analogy's
validity; you are just guessing, and you are forced to guess because you insist (again without any
scientific knowledge) that sin nature exists in a corporeal fashion.

It stands to reason, however, that if someone (say like Jesus) lacked this sin nature, t ...[text shortened]... e
without sin natures (even though we lack the scientific capacity to do so at the present).

The analogy may be weak, but it is not cancelled by Mary's conception of Jesus. In that situation, only the seed of the woman was employed, humanly-speaking. The other chromosomes were provided by the Holy Spirit, thus rendering the seed of the man unnecessary.

The conjecture that some are putting forward here is whether or not that seed of man could be manipulated. There is no biblical evidence that any such situation ever existed, nor does there appear to be any future pragnostication of the same.

And, you are correct in saying there exists no scientific verification of the sin nature. The information provided regarding the biblical concept of the sin nature is explained from a scientific process, as it relates to the formation of the physical body. Science can only see so far and so much, as has been established.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
... the nearest analogy I can think of is that of the wick and the flame: the flame is too dependent upon the wick to survive the separation.

The flame can be separated from the wick, as has been discovered by the many whose house have burnt down as a result.

I still see no reason to assume that the sin nature is contained in the genes. Why not in some other part of the cell?

Also as cloning has been proved possible, there can be no doubt that a sinless clone is on its way in the near future. Is this a good thing or would God frown upon the avoidance of his punishment on Adam?