NJK said:

Then all I can say is that you do not understand the connection between physiology, brain function, and psyche.

Many experiments have been done looking at combinations of genetic variations, specifically looking at single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Studies done in Israel looking a combinations of SNPs, researchers were able to predict with something like 75-80% how an individual would response to certain psychological experiments. Not 100%! And that is important, for freewill can override genetics. A lecture I heard gives another example of how genetics affects behavior is seen in a family in Europe, the Balkan countries, where they looked at 250 males of an extended family. 80% of the males were in prison for murder. These males have a genetic defect that affects I believe it was the amigdala. When they got into confrontational situations, the normal biochemical mechanisms that quiet anger are not there, and their anger escalates, to the point of murder. But again, not every single male with this defect is a murderer. The point is, there is a connection between the physiology and the psyche. Habits and behaviors we choose to indulge in, can affect the underlying physiology and thus ultimately our characters, in both inherited and cultivated ways. EGW says this about physiology and mind: "There is an intimate relation between the mind and the body; they react upon each other." {RH, February 11, 1902 par. 5} The body is first laid down by genetics. To divorce the two is impossible.

And this EGW quote is clear to me: "Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-around character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard, stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected." --COL 331 (1900). {2MCP 546.1}

So - where did these inherited tendencies come from in the first place? How are they generated? How are they expressed? How are they transferred? To me the answer is sin, but then how does sin cause these effects. It is not due to the lack of access to the TOL.

That’s likely... as I have not done much study in this science.



Interesting example and SOP quote however my question, if that example is to be applicable to what EGW said: is the Amygdala the psyche itself or is it just one of the mechanism that the psyche using in actualizing itself. As an example, from what I just skimly read on the Amygdala, I see it as being the brake cable in a bicycle brake assembly and the psyche actually not even being the brake handle, but somewhat as intangible, yet still present as the rider’s hand. I.e., those people in that experiment, if not psychotic, probably wanted to stop this anger escalation but just couldn’t no matter how hard they tried, as it would be seen/heard in their probable expressed regret after. So if the brake cable is not there, no matter how much the rider presses the brake handle, there will be no breaking action. (The Amygdala can even be compared to the brake handle itself with the brake cable being the nervous system that transfers its “braking” action to the rest of the body, still it is the action of the variously distinct human hand that triggers it.)

A good sermon I heard on the concept of the mind (=psyche aka. Soul) is by david Asscherick entitled “The Idol Brain”



Perhaps then, the indulgence into sin by an parent ancestor resulting in the body variously responding to that constant behavior in various physiological affectations comes to inscribe itself in one’s genes, as apparently does alcoholism. If ‘one can be what they externally intake as food’, then perhaps the internal bodily reactions to sin can indeed be transferred. Whereas, as EGW’s statement says, good character apparently keeps the body neutral (i.e., as it should be) and so there really is nothing extra to hereditarily transfer from one’s good character. However the influence of another person’s good character can lead to an emulation which comes to write/inscribe itself on the observing person’s “blank”/neutral psyche slate.



As I just said above, perhaps indeed to psyche induced, physiologically produced, gene altering processes. However I do not see that this has to go back to an original TOKGE fruit poisoning. Bodily “addictive sinning” (sex addict) which may be a different thing from more “cerebral sinning” (lying to get out of a jam) may have only begun to be instilled some time after Adam and Eve, when others then born began to engage in such “addictive practices”. I do not see a “genetic” nor Theological need for Adam and Eve to have gotten a supposed all-inclusive sin shot through the banned fruit, nor even in their initial act of sinning. Other acts of sins contributed to this possible recoded and passed on “sinful” genes/traits, and that would be why, by Christ’s time, there had come to be a great accumulation over those 4000 years of such “sinful traces” in one’s inherited genetic makeup.

So your genetic view may be valid except for the supposed “all inclusive sin junk shot” in the banned fruit. And if I misunderstood you and you do not believe in an ““all inclusive sin junk shot” in the banned fruit” but rather just a shot of a single sin, which would then meant that the other inherited sinful tendencies, which are indeed different, would have to have been formed after, and even entirely outside of Adam and Eve. That in itself, I see would make your banned fruit poison view moot as it would be stating that such “genetic” traits could have formed independent of the eating of the fruit and whatever single sin poison’ would have been included in there. Unless of course you believe that initial “sin poison” could mutate.

My view is that sin can have physiological affectations from merely thoughts, and the real issue with the Tree of Life and Sinner was merely keeping them healthy, and not making them spiritually sinless and pure. In regards to the redeemed, I see that the wholesale change of a brand new body will take care of any of these inherited sinful tendencies at any level where they may be tangibly present. And, as already stated, for the more/quasi intangible mind/psyche God will be doing a thorough sin excising process to purify it.

Part - all parts make the whole. You can not separate out any part of the nervous system and say, ah, here is the psyche.
I mentioned epigenetics above. Google this: epigenetics, NOVA, "tale of two mice". This is a good example of epigenetics, and how epigenetic changes can be passed on to the next generation. This example takes 2 identical twin sister mice, and tweak the diet, with BPA. One remains normal with brown fur, the other becomes morbidly obese with golden fur. Go back to a normal diet for both, but the children of the obese mouse are obese. And this persists for - you guessed it - the 3rd or 4th generation. Not all "sin" was experienced in the garden. EGW makes a fascinating statement, that there has not been just one fall, but a sequence of fall, each worse that the prior. Here are two: This tells me that sin is the cause of disease and death, not just a lack of access to the TOL. Yes, the TOL was necessary, but you make the jump to say that the TOL would maintain perfect health. Again EGWSo yes, the TOL could maintain life, but it would be a sinner's life and it would be misery. To say that everything in the body would function perfectly seems to me a jump too far. In medicine, we often can keep people alive for long periods of time. But often that life is a miserable experience. Removing the TOL was probably a blessing...
I don't know what was in the fruit. I don't think is was nothing. I think the fruit was integral to the sin issue, taking scripture and EGW together. Example from Early Writings, speaking about worlds other than earth:And scripture, Hebrews 1:3, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:12, Hebrews 2:17, and many more. And what happened in the tree was only the start. As I showed, EGW talks about a succession of falls. If sin were just the believing the lie about God, then is the succession just believing more lies? If the genetic hypothesis is true, what we see is multiple "infestations" of genetic transposable elements. And the "attacks" are not over! New TEs are being discovered. The "war" is still on. So again, I don't know what was in the fruit. God and Satan may have had a deal where if Adam ate the fruit, then Satan would have free reign. EGW does talk about the "seeds" that cause death and tares by "amalgamation", her words, when Adam at the fruit.And this one, again, taking the definition of "seed" in Genesis 3:15 to mean, genetics, which I think I've shown is a possible definition, EGW says this:There is nothing good that I know of with the genetic transposable elements, TEs. There are many scientific papers that point to them causing disease, that some have hypothesized that ALL disease is caused by TEs. In fact there is a strong correlation with some TE and psychiatric diseases.

But we must not make any final judgment about people. Jesus healed the demoniac. Did Jesus heal the demoniac against his will? No. But the demoniac was so taken over, that he could only utter the words of Satan. We know that there are many addictive substances, and these substances cause genetic switches to be thrown that make it very difficult to quit. This is called chemical "dependency". This is a real physical need that is acquired. Some drug addictions such as barbiturates, can cause death with sudden withdrawal. EGW said this about the demoniac:One last point, all this discussion is speaking about a post fall brain. And I'm going to inject my engineering background here and think about the pre-fall brain, and this is oppinion, I could be wrong. I do not think that God created junk. I do not think God created being that can self-destruct by just thinking wrong. I think the system has been altered. Satan planted the seeds into the system. Now it is vulnerable. Pre-fall, it was not. Sin is messing with the way God designed the system to run. God's work is perfect, His "law", perfect. Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 19:7. Nahum 1:9 tells us affliction will not rise a second time. Why? Will there ever be a time again when people will question God? What about new creatures which are created after the sin problem of now is resolved? I think that sin will not rise again because it will have been shown and well documented that God can be trusted, that His work is perfect, and if you mess with the way His creatures are to operate, it will destroy them. The documentation of this experiment of sin will be there for all in the future to see and review. That's my opinion...

I still have the question is the mind/psyche the nervous system itself. As far as I understand, the nervous system is merely a body-wide signals transmitter via neurons. I.e., the bodies electrical distribution network. However is it the generator that produce the electrical signals that flow through the system. Seems to me that there is a distinct entity (i.e, the mind/psyche) that, through thought produce a signal that is then transmitted through those electrical impulses.

---

I’ll indeed concede that some things can be genetically passed on.



Note the reasons why, and actualizations of, these further “falls” from EGW statements



It seems clear to me that the reasons for these further falls is the increased violation of God’s health and moral laws. I think further falls have been seen since the days of EGW with e.g, sedentary lifestyles producing obesity related diseases, something not seen in her days. Cancer, Aids, STD’s are all further “falls” in my view and not because of something concocted by Satan himself and injected into man, but simply by the disobedience/violation of God’s moral and natural laws through bolder and more careless behavior.



Perhaps if man, though occasionally sinning, did not engage in acts that violate God’s moral or natural laws, as seen in the way many heathen live today e.g., practising “safe, but promiscuous, sexual relation” all the while being exercising vegans, then they could indeed live that life eternally with the Fruit of Life and free from diseases that is generated by “careless” and unhealthful living. That was perhaps the crux of Satan’s argument. Man did not have to obey all God laws, per se, but merely, if they so wanted to, live “carefully” and healthily, but this still being a sinful law. Even a life that only violates the first 3.5 commandments, as they would be having a day of total rest/relaxation per week, just not either on Saturday or to the glory of God. So I still see the GC issue to be: “why did God make it that someone who did not obey all of His laws as He wanted it to be done, die.”

So under this (relatively) good, fit/healthy, careful, albeit God despising sinner, I see that the TOL would have maintain perfect health, even if only dealing with the somewhat intangible adverse effects produced by violating the first 3.5 commandment, if there actually are any. It could very well be that the only advantage in those commandments is, life the fifth, the quite helpful guidance and protection that God, our parent could provide to those who actually love him. As seen in the health message, SDA’s were the first to benefit from it, and the world had to struggle on its own, mainly through pain and pleasure and trial and error, (as indeed seen in the continuing conflicting studies on the supposed benefits of alcohol), before they saw that it was beneficial. Meanwhile SDA’s who followed this message have been living more optimal lives.

Also keep in mind, as it is quite significant that with the TOL still present, the Earth would be in a perfect state and thus be most conducive to optimal life and health.



I tried, but do not Theologically/exegetically see your “genetics view”, at least entirely, in those passages. To me, having read all of your arguments, they could still be only involving a spiritual aspect of sin. While “hereditary sinful tendencies” may be also involved, to me it is not ‘tangible sin in its entirety’ as you seem to believe.



I think you can agree that Adam and Eve did not become vile sinners the instant they ate of the Fruit, perhaps, not even for the rest of their lives, actually becoming the fathers of the relatively faithful lineage of the “Sons of God”. Indeed Eve did not even lose her robe of light when she ate of the Fruit. So their Fall, which when compared with their previous sinlessness, would have been a drastic fall in itself. Indeed just like falling/committing a sin for the very first time. There similarly can be quite distinct successive falls from that initial fall, even with the same sin. So I still see that Adam and Eve fall was merely on the Spiritual level. Then as their descendants continued to commit greater sins, indeed with Cain giving in to jealousy and anger killing Abel, successive ‘falls” came as new “sin frontiers” were pursued and boundaries extended by the antediluvians and successive generation. Again from EGW day to our day, even from within my own lifetime, I can say I have seen a further fall of man into sin.



I rather/still see that Adam and Eve fall, like lucifers, who is intelligent enough to know not to live recklessly, only needed to be Spiritual, yet still be a steep Fall. Then loss of optimal health, even if not (yet) “disease”, even if for them merely aging, came to them, and gradually developed when the TOL was removed. And in successive generations, indeed also through the noxious elements that Satan injected into nature, other types/levels of diseases came to be factored in this “Fall” equation.

But we must not make any final judgment about people. Jesus healed the demoniac. Did Jesus heal the demoniac against his will? No. But the demoniac was so taken over, that he could only utter the words of Satan. We know that there are many addictive substances, and these substances cause genetic switches to be thrown that make it very difficult to quit. This is called chemical "dependency". This is a real physical need that is acquired. Some drug addictions such as barbiturates, can cause death with sudden withdrawal. EGW said this about the demoniac:

---

Particularly with mental diseases, God can indeed be the only source of true/full healing vs. bandage chemical balancing/coping.




Couple of points here in regards to this opinion. First of all I do not think that man self-destructs merely by thinking wrong. That is why I believe, as Gen 3:22-24 says, that a ‘sinful(-minded) person’ can live eternally. The destruction occurs when those sinful thoughts are acted upon. So e.g., a sinner may just chose to lust after someone else in his mind but never act upon it. Thus they would prevent the risks of diseases that come when lust is physically acted upon.

I have expressed my exegetical view on Nahum 1:9 in this Post #131487 and responding ones: #131492; #131531; #131548; #131576; #131592; #131623; #131659; #131670; #131690; #131708; #131738; #131748; #131785. On top of the pre-emptive reason you have stated, I think, given the freedom we will still have, sin will not allowed to be concretized, even if merely mentally, because any sin/sinner manifestation will be summarily judged and eradicated, to the approval of all others.

I also have another view, based on EGW’s “Golden Card” revelation, that, at least beings who have never sinned have a total thought “privacy”, meaning that God does not, though capable to, read their thoughts. See here. Perhaps redeemed man will also have this trusting privilege. However sinful thoughts can and would be seen upon merely one’s particular facial “countenance.”

A couple more thoughts. HIV - this is a viral infection, a retrovirus. It is a type of transposable genetic element. Does it cause immediate death? No. But untreated, the sufferer will die. This death is caused by a choice. But only when the choice is fully acted upon. This is an imperfect example, but one none the less.

Jesus said, Luke 5:23 AKJV "Whether is easier, to say, Your sins be forgiven you; or to say, Rise up and walk?" Forgiveness of sins in this case was the same a physical healing. They were the same.

Jesus - was he affected by sin? Yes he was. How? It was in His heredity, because he never "participated" in the sinful (full of sin) human nature.
If this was only due to the loss of the TOL, then God is to blame for this condition. God is NOT to blame. The human race was degenerating, in BOTH physical and mental/spiritual power. The only way I know that this is passed one to the next generation is genetic with Jesus.The only way the Christ could be MADE SIN, is to take on the same heredity. He never participated in sin. But as Isaiah 53 says, He took or infirmities and carried our sorrows. And as EGW said, accepted the "great law of heredity".

A couple of response points to your post:



How is the contracting of HIV a (personal) choice when it is contracted through a hospital error during a blood transfusion or an accidental infection? And how is the death aspect of it a choice, as you posit, does someone with HIV have the opposing choice not to die from this virus, especially when they contracted by no unhealthful/immoral living of their own?



Jesus understood that full restoration, especially from a life that has been affected both spiritually and physically by (4000 years of) sin, involves both the forgiveness of sin as well as, even after, physical healing. As His answer stated He wanted to show and emphasize that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:24). To me the (monthly) TOL fruit could and may have prevented most, if not all of such physical degradation in Man, to the point were the adverse effects of even a unhealthy lifestyle may not have been allowed to take root. The Fruits supernatural element may also have contained a sort of spontaneous formation of a healing element to meet new bodily/health problems.



I think you are mixing your contexts here by making a post-TOL removal context argument for a no-TOL removal one. My Theological/GC position from what I have gathered in the Bible and SOP is that, since sinful man could have lived eternally, then God is indeed to “blame” for this outcome death for all and any person who does not live according to all of His laws. As I said before, especially the first 3.5. Indeed I see that Satan blames God for this seemingly arbitrary choice and this ongoing GC is to show why this had to be so as all of these commandments are being played out in man to see if they are not arbitrary. The last one to be vindicated/validated is the fourth, the Sabbath. The first 3 are demonstrated by the fact that God does not have to sponsor the life of someone who neither recognizes, loves, respects, nor wants to honor God superiority in terms of power, knowledge and intelligence.

--

In a post TOL removal context, Jesus can indeed be affected both physically and hereditarily by unfettered and unchecked degradation from sinful living.

I guess where we only differ on this issue is on the points of sinful man being capable of living eternally with the TOL and that a “tangibly contaminating junk shot” was present in the banned fruit. To me the first contradicts the Bible and SOP and the Second takes sin away from its root/foundational (free) choice aspect and actually rather excusingly claims, like a crack baby (who actually can be cured by, especially when older, will power): “I was made this sinful way”. Indeed that would mean that Adam and Eve were forcefully “injected” with some forms of sin that they did not even want to commit. The key “choice” element for each and every type of sin is removed by this Biblical hypothesis. To me, even today, 6000 years after many falls, man still has the choice as to which sins they will be “captured” by. Indeed just as it was with Jesus. He made have had “sinful flesh,” however He, by constant good choices, was never taken captive by this degraded “flesh” even though it inherently made Him ‘susceptible (i.e., able/capable) to sin.’

This viewpoint is more reasonable, in my opinion:

kland,

Re: #1
There is more significance to the slavery issue than merely having been treated unfairly. If you were to pass out a survey to a broad variety of people, of multiple ethnicities, chances are that the race most associated with slavery would be the blacks. When have you ever, for example, heard of American Indians, of any tribe: Hopi, Choctaw, Iroquois, Mohawk, Cherokee, Sioux, Apache, Chippewa, Algonquin, Navajo, Arapaho, Shawnee, Pueblo, etc. being subjected to slavery? Conquered, yes. Forced to occupy small reservations, yes. Enslaved? If one counts slavery to alcohol, or "fire water," perhaps. But actual forced slavery? Uncommon. It did happen. But it as it happens, the Indians were actually slaveholders, just like the whites.



This is the general trend of things. Given a choice between white or black, Asian or black, Indian or black, or any race against black--I can predict which one would be considered most likely to have slaves in their ancestral lineage--and the answer is always the same. And I believe any honest survey would find that to be the public perception.

Re: #2
Why would Noah curse Ham's son instead of cursing Ham himself? What about the business of children not being punished for the sins of their fathers and vice versa?

I believe that the Holy Spirit spoke through Noah in a sort of "birthright cursing" in this case. God knew the future, and preserved Noah's words to our generation to help us see the accuracy of His foreknowledge.

Re: #4
I don't believe that all of our current races were borne on the ark. In that sense, you and I agree. However, I do believe that there was sufficient variety represented on the ark to pass on the diversity which we now have.

If you look at at people who live for generations in the hot sun, you will not see that their color changes because of it. At least, I have not seen that. Look at the Middle East, for example. How many of the so-called "Arabs" are black? Do they not live in some of the hotter and more desert-covered terrains on the planet? Why should they not be much nearer to ebony in their appearance? Genetics are not quickly changed by a little sunshine. Wrinkles may come. Dark tans may come. But permanently black or wrinkled skin in one's progeny does not come.

So, I would return the question to you--where do you think the black color would have "evolved?"

Re: #5
Yes. The word "race" has multiple senses, and Mrs. White used it in more than one of them. So we agree on this. But it is important to note that any/every time the word "race" is used, it indicates some distinction between people groups. That distinction may vary from simple matters of pigmentation to more complex and/or abstract matters of spirituality or condition.

Re: #6
In a sense, yes. I'm not saying black people themselves represent sin. I do not believe this at all. Nor would it be quite fair to think of them as representing "sinners" when that encompasses every human who ever lived here except for Christ Himself. We are all blackened by sin. But the color black--I do believe it is a fitting symbol of sin, of ignorance, of error, and of slavery and bondage. And it almost seems just like God to provide us tangible object lessons through such simple matters as that of color.

Here are a few of Mrs. White's thoughts relative to the "color" of sin.

Sin is black. Pardon that is offered for sin is red or crimson (blood). Purity and righteousness are white. These are the major colors, spiritually speaking. One's skin color is not a proper indicator of one's spiritual color. Hopefully that is clear.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Does a baby that contracts HIV in utero have a personal choice? They are born with it.

In follow up to Cochoa on slavery - it can be argued that there are most slaves today than at any time in history. And these from all colors and races. Human trafficking is big business.

In follow up on skin color - some assumes that the darker skin "evolved". But it is probable that the lighter colors "devolved". And looking genetically, most humans have the same genes. The only difference is the amount of expression of those genes.