A theological-biological explanation of “the original sin’s transmission”

Gobbledegook

The means does not justify the end, or validate it.

Sin is about means not ends. It sin is disobedience to God’s ways. It is the means by which we aechieve whatever goal we have in mind. To kill someone to achieve a goal would be a sin. To reach the same goal by Godly means would not be a sin. It is not the result that matters.

Self preservation is a result. As long as you are keeping within God’s guidelines it is not a sin in itself.

That makes this life a rite of passage. IOW our only function is to unite ourselves with God so that we can live for eternity. What a waste of time and effort.

Why on earth would God create us just as a trial. And if Adam failed at the first attempt, why take it any further! If the only solution is for God to intervene then the whole trial is falacious and pointless!

The meaning of Life? Obey God!

Brilliant!

Richard

Odd that you call it “Gobbledegook” and then argue in favor of what you just called “Gobbledegook”.

1 Like

Hello, everyone. I came upon this forum just this week, and this thread inspired me to respond with testimony of my own experience and how it pertains to the topic being discussed. It is science that ultimately rekindled my faith, albeit in a very unexpected way. I understand that much of what follows will seem absurd on its face to many of you, so all I ask for is your openness to hear me out. (Also, please note that none of what follows is medical advice.)

Late last year my uncle passed from Alzheimer’s, an unspeakably cruel disease that slowly and methodically chisels away at the foundation of human cognition until there is nothing left. Watching my uncle deteriorate over the course of a decade left me with grave concern over my own potential genetic vulnerability to this disease. Through some cursory investigation into what is known about it, I discovered recently published studies that implicated the bacteria Porphyromonas gingivalis as the cause. If this sounds familiar, it is probably because this is the same bacteria historically known to cause gum disease. The name “gingivitis” featured prominently in ads for dental hygiene products during the late 80s and early 90s, though you don’t hear much about it these days. In the case of Alzheimer’s, the pathway this pathogen presumably follows into the cranium is through the gums and into the sinus cavity before finally taking up residence beneath the hippocampus. Once there, it triggers a low-level inflammation to which the immune system responds by building amyloid plaque as a sort of firewall defense.

Both my uncle and I had suffered tooth decay to varying degrees. He lost most of his, while mine have fillings throughout the top and bottom rows. My own research led me to understand that this bacteria is anaerobic and antibiotic resistant. I concluded, should this infection be present beyond the oral cavity, that the only way to kill it would be to starve it out. I had already given up my major vices about seven years ago (I was a heavy smoker and drinker for much of adulthood), but the biggest challenge remaining was to overcome my relentless craving for sweets. This past spring, I finally managed to break its grip. Within about three weeks of abstinence from any food or drink containing fructose, sucrose or artificial sweeteners, I began to experience the most life altering sequence of events. My mental clarity reached a level I had previously never known. I had suffered from what I believe to have been ADHD since early adolescence; where previously I could barely make it through a few paragraphs without forgetting what I’d just read, I now found myself able and eager to sit down and absorb a 1,200-page book that’s long been on my list. While my thoughts are still abundant, I am now fully in control of them. In addition to this, the pain from the diagnosed arthritis in my hips and lower back had completely vanished. In the subsequent weeks I’d constantly find myself flinching in anticipation of excruciating pain whenever performing certain movements, but the pain no longer arrived. All of the irrational urges that once reigned over me ebbed completely, and I suddenly found myself with a level of freedom that I hadn’t felt since early childhood.

So where do science and faith intersect in all of this? The obvious conclusion is that scientific studies led me to reclamation of my health and mental well-being for which I am thankful beyond words, but that doesn’t explain how the divine factors into the equation. This is where things are bound to become a bit controversial. I am of the conviction that we have not interpreted the lesson of Genesis correctly. To my mind, chapters one and two illustrate the evolution of the Earth and life upon it over billions of years exactly as we now understand it through empirical observation and the advancement of science, though God does not care whether you believe this or if you take literally that it all happened over the course of a week. It is His way of saying, “long story short,” before delivering the consequential lesson (along with a rather peculiar test of logic) at chapter three. To understand what I’m getting at, let us take into consideration the audience for whom it was first written as our contemporary reading of scripture tends to become distorted by the lens of presentism through which we view it. The literacy rate of Biblical Canaan is estimated by some sources to have been approximately three percent, and the metric for this literacy was whether one could read and write one’s own name. This was a fledgling society, mewling and afraid, still wet with afterbirth. They couldn’t comprehend the written word, so delivering this message was dependent on an oral tradition illustrated with vivid imagery. They were likely aware that snakes did bite and that those bites did cause great hurt. They had no conception of pathogenic microbes, and if they were ever exposed to a dissected human brain ravaged by disease, they would have no idea what they were being shown. Therefore, the corruption caused by this pathogen had to be made familiar. We cannot confidently know which events illustrated throughout the Old Testament are truly historic, if any, and it wouldn’t matter regardless. The events depicted after the fall of man serve as a warning about the consequences of our disobedience. Mankind’s first action after expulsion from paradise is the commission of fratricide, and things only get worse from there.

It is my belief that Genesis constitutes what I’d call the Ur Commandment. This is the “test of logic” I mentioned earlier. When faced with the knowledge that disobedience of this original order issued to us by the Lord our God resulted in our fall and with no way of knowing which specific fruit grew from the tree in the midst of the garden, wouldn’t it be prudent to abstain from all types of fruit? Our access to the garden was rescinded, yet the world that the garden occupied remains all around us.

Good to have you here Michael, and glad you have found a healthier life through your lifestyle changes. I tend to be a little skeptical of some of the mechanisms of injury but look forward to advances as we learn more about Alzheimer’s and other diseases.

1 Like

I understand what you say in the following way:

  1. Before the first human sin, death was already part of creation as an evolutionary mechanism, and was biologically transmitted by DNA replication.

  2. However, this death can be considered “meaningful” in the sense that, although encoded in the human DNA, the first humans (ordered by God to share eternal life) were endowed with the capability to overcoming such “harming” evolutionary mechanisms and did not die by getting sick and injured.

  3. Only after the first sin, humans became submitted to “pointless” death, i.e. getting sick and injured. And this state becomes transmitted from generation to generation by means of DNA replication.

I would be thankful to know whether this interpretation of your statements is correct.

It was meaningful in that the creatures dying were serving as food for others as opposed to being a matter of cruelty or something else wasteful.

All right!

But we should assume that the first humans (“God made to eternal life with Him”) were NOT submitted to such a “meaningful” way of dying.

Do you agree?

After reading your response on another thread I went to your profile for some background and found nothing. I wish it was possible for you to link this response there so that when people want to know from what perspective a person is commenting it could be found. Welcome aboard regardless.

Mark, I still am familiarizing myself with the notification system here and missed your reply. You have my apologies.

Which other thread are you referring to? I am also happy to provide any additional background info on myself that may be requested.

It might have been your first but you provided some nice background. Don’t think I’m savvy enough to find it now. But there is a space to provide some of that in your profile which few make use of.

Oops it was your first post on this thread that I found interesting for your background.

1 Like

I hear this often in what you post, Richard. Each time it seems to be axiomatic. No sustaining data, logic, or Scripture appears as a base on which this idea is founded. An unfounded idea, to be true, therefore must be an axiom.
In this case the appearance of free will is a vapor. In which case so is sin.

1 Like

Good to know, thanks. I’ll try to come up with a brief, informative profile as best as I can.

1 Like

If we do not have free will then our lives are meaningless and so is creation. You end up with a glorified automation or computer programme. Everything is predetermined You have no control over your life. “What do you want” becomes academic at best. There is no logic.

Furthermore, if we have no choice but to sin then we are not guilty. It is forced upon us. There is nothing to forgive. Christ’s death is meaningless.

Sin must be a conscious decision for it to have any meaning. likewise forgiveness is meaningless if the act was beyond our control

If we have no choice, how can we choose to accept the forgiveness offered to us?

Perhaps you would like to dispute these assertions? If so, on what grounds?.

Scripture may suggest that everything is being controlled by God but that is Judaism, based on the chosen race being nurtured and trained by God. However, a prophecy that says
“If you…” or “If you do not…” would suggest that the decision is ours and not God’s, otherwise it would be meaningless. Therefore, even within Judaism there is a limited amount of self-determination or freedom of choice.

Richard

It looks like we find common ground in the following 5 statements:

  1. Before the first human sin, death, illness and the pursuit of selfish interests were already part of creation as evolutionary mechanisms, and were biologically transmitted by DNA replication. Such a creation was undoubtedly God’s creation.

  2. These evolutionary mechanisms (illness, death, selfish interests) can be considered “meaningful” in that the creatures dying were serving as food for others as opposed to being a matter of cruelty or something else wasteful.

  3. Although encoded in the human DNA, the first humans (ordered by God to share eternal life) were endowed with the capability to overcoming such “meaningful” evolutionary mechanisms and, in particular, did not die by getting sick and injured.

  4. Only after the first sin, humans became submitted to “pointless” death, i.e. getting sick and injured, and to inclination to sin (concupiscence). And this state becomes transmitted from generation to generation by means of DNA replication.

  5. Although after the Fall our state on earth is “flawed” by death, illness and the tendency to sin (concupiscence), these flaws do not come from “God’s wrath”, but should rather be considered circumstances our Father God uses to stimulate us to struggle for getting close to Him.

From these five points we are led to the three following important conclusions:

I.
God submitted creation to death, illness and the pursuit of selfish interests from the very beginning, because God considered the possibility that humans sin, and wanted mercifully to give us opportunity to repent: So God decided that in such a case He would let us on earth but in a “fallen state”, that is, submitted to illness, death, and inclination to sin, in order to stimulate us to struggle for getting close to him.

II.
What is evil in this “fallen state” is caused by the first human sin. By contrast, the fact that this state is beneficial for our redemption originates from God’s mercy. Coherently, before the arrival of the first sin, God did not submit the first humans (He ordered to eternal life) to this state, and endowed them with the capability (original grace) for overcoming the evolutionary mechanisms of illness, death, and selfish instincts leading to harm others.

III.
After the first sin, humans remain on earth (without original grace) submitted to illness, death and inclination to sin, and these circumstances become inherited and transmitted by DNA replication. Nonetheless innocent people like infants who may die in this state are NOT damned to hell.

As far as we define the state of “original sin” as the “fallen state” characterized by illness, death, and inclination to sin, the three statements (I-III) above seem to provide a (theological-biological) explanation for the transmission of the state of “original sin”, that could be shared by many Christian believers.

And this looks like a promising achievement of this Forum!

As there is no such thing as Original Sin your conclusions are premature.

Richard

“All about power and control” applies to many posts by another member here, also without data or logic.

The part in bold is not correct, which means that the premises are not correct. The error, as I have pointed out before, lies in making “guilt” the operative term, something derived from bad readings of Paul (though justified given the Latin so many theologians were stuck working with, e.g. Augustine). The East has always noted that the issue isn’t a legal one but a relational one – separation – and a relational status where that separation results in a flaw. The way to address broken relations and flaws isn’t to assign fault but to bring reconciliation and to repair the flaws, and that is what the Incarnation is about! Christ’s death isn’t meaningless because it isn’t about fault and guilt in the first place, it’s about redemption as per the Old Testament, the bringing together of things that were opposed and the bringing back of things that were lost.

That’s a really narrow and indeed shallow view; it restricts “forgiveness” to being a legal maneuver. When a gal I knew in my university days had a major seizure that resulted in breaking some highly prized possessions of a housemate, that housemate offering forgiveness wasn’t a legal maneuver, it was a relational maneuver that recognized that the gal with epilepsy was the one who broke those items and eliminated the resulting relational barrier.

The same way that gal I knew did: gratefully, recognizing that thought the flaw wasn’t something she had chosen it was nevertheless part of who she was.

Forgiveness isn’t about marking something off in some ledger, it’s about healing. One of the prophets wrote that there is no health in us; it is the lack of health that results in us giving offenses, and forgiveness is necessary as a step towards health.

That’s some interesting reasoning but there’s still no logical connection between DNA and sin; I see that as sheer invention. It appears you’re trying to make something linear and physical in a way that in essence denies the importance of the spiritual, as though humans are just machines in a very materialistic sense.

I especially take issue with two things: first, that God ordered Creation on the basis of a mere possibility; second that there is anything inherently beneficial about being in a fallen state.

1 Like

I’m not sure that reflects the whole reality.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1

1 Like

That’s been noted before.

1 Like