I don't think they are. If inbred sin, inward corruption, inherited sinful tendencies and were passed on that way, Jesus would have them also. And you know I don't believe Jesus had inward sin, inward corruption or sinful tendencies. He was the Holy One of Israel.


With lots of BBQ sauce.

Sin is breaking the rules. You break the 10C, that's a sin. It's very straightforward.

Yes, there's a legal problem. But what you fail to grasp is that it is NOT ONLY a legal problem. Hence, you are completely flummoxed when faced with an aspect of sin that is not within the legal realm. And the same is true when it is not within the genetic realm.

I don't think you answered my question of how sin affects all creation. Can you please elaborate?

Actually I did. You replied to the four sentences,I gave a response. to the four sentences. And to the quotation from The Great Controversy, Read the post in message #147251. Read you Great Controversy quote, and the Bible quotes in that post. What is God's wrath in Romans 1? How was God's wrath expressed in Deuteronomy 32? That is the answer.

You've seen by now that when I don't know, I don't have a problem saying so. Try it out. Ask me a question I don't know the answer to.

However, I do know that what you are proposing is a specious amalgamation of spiritual and scientific information. You take a piece here and a piece there, throw it all together and hope to come out with something palatable. That might work for stew, but not here.

We talked about why Jesus had to die. Your best answer is that dogs have cancer. But we all know that's not the crux of the Great Controversy. Enoch was sanctified long before Jesus was crucified, which causes logical problems for your position.

Then you bring up sin being in the genes. Since we know that sin entered the world through Adam, you can't answer how his genes can spread to the dogs and plants.

Now you bring up that Satan did this. Of course, we have known this all along. We have covered that quote many times in many threads over the years. But here's the question for you: How did Satan damage a plant's genetic code by tempting it to sin?

You see, it's really untenable to say that sin is in the genes. The marks of sin will be manifest in the genes, sure. But sin itself is not in the genes. Sin is a spiritual matter.

Hence, while dogs and cacti bear the marks of sin, they do not sin. And Jesus did not die to redeem them.

Lastly, while I am no geneticist, not even a biologist, I've taken a few science classes as I worked for my electrical engineering degree. And though I lack the background in the life sciences, I think my logic and critical thinking skills still apply. Bad logic is bad logic, no matter where you find it.

APL, thank you.

Are you asking a general question like MM did? Or do you want to know the mechanism?

APL, WITHOUT A sinless CHRIST WE HAVE NO HOPE!

But, if "sin" is in our DNA, and Christ inherited our DNA by virtue of having been born as a "son of man," taking upon Himself our mortal flesh, then Jesus was NOT sinless, and we really do have no hope!

I really have a hard time understanding how anyone could have difficulty understanding that point. I am soooo glad that sin is not "in the DNA" as you seem to view it. And whether or not you recognize this truth, it is to your benefit that sin was not in Jesus' DNA. A sinner could never have atoned for us. Only a perfect Lamb could suffice.


When did Jesus bear our sins? When He was born? Or when they were placed upon Him "on the tree?" If I sprinkle my blood on you, is it also running in your bloodstream? If our sins were placed upon Christ, did they make Him a sinner?

Does being tempted constitute "sin" in your opinion? Since Jesus was "tempted," He's a sinner now? Or would you agree with me that Jesus never sinned, even though the devil attempted to entice Him to do so?

Jesus accepted our flesh, with all of its encumbrances but without its inclinations toward sin. Jesus had no "propensity" toward sin, as is brought out in other statements from Mrs. White which you have not here included. In other words, when Jesus was stung by a bee, it hurt, just as it would for you or me. He may have been tempted by that to become irritable, but He never did. He had no leanings toward sin.

I answered this already just above.

We are NOT programmed to sin beyond our ability to choose. Since we cannot choose our DNA any more than by taking thought we can add a cubit to our stature, it is clear that sin cannot be inherent in our DNA. We can choose NOT to sin. Sin is a choice, not a genetic property.

Thank you for using the KJV. It translates those verses more accurately, and helps us put them in the proper historical context. Some translations put them in present tense such that it appears that we must continue to sin. There is no statement in all of the Bible that declares we must sin. Praise God! We still have freedom of choice! And God is able to, with the temptation, make a way of escape, that we may be able to bear it!

Did Jesus' immune system keep out all viruses? Or did He "sin?" (I think you would agree that permitting "selfishness" would be sin.)

Your error, APL, is to say that the DNA transmits "sin." I'm sure we might both agree that it transmits sins' effects. But there is a difference between cause and effect which must be clearly maintained here. It is a most important distinction, for if sin is in our DNA, we have no hope and no choice.

A virus might be a relic of sin, and it might present object lessons to us in terms of selfishness, but it is not itself sin, nor sinful. A virus has no mind. A virus is not even "alive." It cannot transgress the law of God. In fact, the laws of God are strictly obeyed at all atomic and cellular levels.


If God caused sin to be present in the DNA of all living creatures, how is it that God is not complicit? If God did not do this, who did and how?

You recall, the "curses" came from Whom? Were they for good or for evil?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mike, I believe that at some point, every sinner has to have his or her first sin. Doesn't that seem reasonable? For every baby to be a sinner at birth requires that he or she has sinned already by that point. I believe the primary sins that a fetus could commit center around the emotions. Selfishness is early experienced, and early imitated. These first sins are sins of ignorance, certainly, but nonetheless sinful. These sins are inherited from the parents.

No blastocyst or zygote could ever hope to survive outside the womb. The early stages of pregnancy develop the brain and spinal cord. Without a mind, no choice is made. Without a choice, sin is not committed. But the mind begins its development long before the internal organs are developed enough to sustain life outside the womb. By the time life can be sustained apart from the mother, even the earliest of premies will have participated in selfishness. As the wise man said, "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child."

When a baby takes its first breath, its own independent life officially begins. Even the Bible speaks of infants being circumcised on the eighth day, something that would be impossible if one tried to enter the womb to do this on the eighth day after conception. So the baby's age is counted by God as beginning at his or her birth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

APL,

The "holy flesh" craze was a spiritualistic delusion, and Ellen White has much to say about it.

I don't think you are using the term in the same context as Mrs. White used it. In any case, it is clear from her statements that "holy flesh" will not be ours prior to the transfiguration at Jesus' coming. Only then will we leave behind our mortality and corruptible for immortality and incorruptible.

Again, if we were required to have "holy flesh" in order to have eradicated sin, then we could not hope to have a "holy heart," could we? But Mrs. White is clear that we certainly may have a holy heart even now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.