Did dogs die before sin? Why do dogs die?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You'll have the burden of answering these things for yourself, certainly, but as for me, I'm happy to accept God's say-so on the matter. Here's what is written for us:

So if death and sin entered the world by Adam's "sinful genes," then those genes must also have been passed on to the animals. You have already stated that this did not occur. Perhaps you will reformulate your view in light of this new evidence.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

e agree that all sins are addictions. We disagree in the source of these addictions. You say that addictions, being sin, are encoded in the DNA. I say that such a concept is patently false. If it were true, then our DNA is changing daily. If our DNA were changing so much, fluctuating in and out of sin, then so much for trying to identify anyone by his or her DNA. So much for DNA paternity tests, etc., for none of them could be considered reliable.

Did I say the source of the addictions was the DNA? I said, the source of the receptors for the various substances you listed are in the DNA. They must be, or we would not have them.

I have never drunk alcohol in my life. I am not addicted to it. You say it is because it is not in my DNA. Now, suppose tomorrow I drink a glass and become an instant addict. You say my DNA just changed, right? Sounds like an easy way to avoid criminal conviction per DNA test--change your habits overnight.

I come from a family of alcoholics. I probably have the receptor which would predispose me to alcohol. I have never tried alcohol. My brother is an alcoholic. The receptors are clearly, they must be, encoded in the DNA. And note - I said "predispose".

How often does your DNA change, APL?

Contantly. If you think DNA is static, then you are greatly mistaken.

APL, the core of your flawed belief about the DNA has perhaps affected your theology in a dangerous way. You seem focused unbalancedly on salvation through Christ alone, without any participation in that salvation on the human side. Such is not in accordance with inspiration. I'm not sure that you would word it as I have, but I do have genuine concern for your understanding, for it may mean a loss of salvation for many people. Many seem to have the idea that there is nothing they can do, that it is all up to Christ. They hold themselves powerless, and therefore lean on a "saved by grace" belief. Certainly we are saved by grace. But not without due diligence on our part.

Have you not read the quotes I posted??? If you had, you would not have just make your false accusation on what I said. THE GREAT BATTLE EVER FOUGHT, IS THE BATTLE AGAINST SELF. This is found in Steps to Christ chapter 5. Yes, everything depends on the right action of the will. But it is Christ that does the transformation - IF WE LET HIM. We must submit to Him. And it is a struggle!

• Everything depends on the right action of the will. The power of choice God has given to men; it is theirs to exercise. You cannot change your heart, you cannot of yourself give to God its affections; but you can choose to serve Him. You can give Him your will; He will then work in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Thus your whole nature will be brought under the control of the Spirit of Christ; your affections will be centered upon Him, your thoughts will be in harmony with Him. {SC 47.1}
  Desires for goodness and holiness are right as far as they go; but if you stop here, they will avail nothing. Many will be lost while hoping and desiring to be Christians. They do not come to the point of yielding the will to God. They do not now choose to be Christians. {SC 47.2}
  Through the right exercise of the will, an entire change may be made in your life. By yielding up your will to Christ, you ally yourself with the power that is above all principalities and powers. You will have strength from above to hold you steadfast, and thus through constant surrender to God you will be enabled to live the new life, even the life of faith. {SC 48.1}

I accept your appology in advance.

If the DNA were the arbiters instead of our own choices, we would truly be predestined to destruction--for we have no power to choose our DNA. How thankful I am that this is not so! It is rather difficult trying to choose one's own biological parents, don't you think? How else could one affect his or her own DNA?

You are right, I did not choose to be a sinner. I was born this way. Again - have you studies epigenetics? We can't change our underlying DNA. We can change or epigenome. Interestingly, diet have a great roll to play. You should read the work of Dean Ornish on diet and prostate cancer. Fascinating.

Maybe all my years in Biology class were in vain, but I was taught that evolution of the DNA only occurs during the sexual process of meiosis and not during ordinary cellular mitosis. There is no way of changing one's DNA for the better, but there are a few ways of increasing the odds of changing it for the worse. Exposing oneself to radiation is one of those. Let's suppose that radiation can cause cancer. Is radiation now "sin?" Yet that is just the sort of reasoning you use to support your view of sin being present throughout the natural world.

Again, have you studied epigenetics? I'll bet you never studied mobile genetic elements in your biology classes. Do you know that at least 50% of our DNA is not original? And one author suggests that perhaps as much as 90% is not original, this published within the last year and a half. Do you know that the damage from ionizing radiation occurs in the mobile genetic elements cause gene breakage? that other external energy forces also affect breakage at the mobile genetic elements such as heat, and electomagnetic energy? Hm - where ever sin is found our God is a consuming fire.

For example, you said this: "Our brains have receptors for these substances. Where do these receptors come from? Are they not encoded in our genome? Are not all the receptors, and all the control of all cellular functions, the chemical pathways, controlled by the genome?"

Yes, the chemical pathways are controlled by the genome. What else controls them? But the expression of the genome is constantly changing. Again - epigenetics.

Now, by that same logic, one might conclude that his or her sinful appetites were also encoded into the DNA, since the DNA provided that he or she should have those taste buds to begin with, or those eyes to see with, or the organs to sense with? But, if the DNA provides our features that give us the opportunity to enjoy sin, is it God's fault for making us this way? God made our DNA. Did God make "sin?"

The tendancies are encoded in our DNA. If you belive that all our DNA came from God, then you could make that accusation that God is responsible for sin. However, we know that much of our DNA is not original. Where did it come from? Matthew 13:24-28 Another parable put he forth to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did not you sow good seed in your field? from where then has it tares? 28 He said to them, An enemy has done this.

It is true that our brains have chemical pathways in them, such as receptor sites for dopamine, acetylcholine, etc. There are chemicals which cross the synaptic clefts of the axons and dendrites, and the neurons can create new synapses with increased activity of a certain brain pathway (thought). Each repetition of a thing can strengthen those pathways, and each neglect of it can weaken them. But are these "pathways" inherited in the DNA? Absolutely not. They are developed only by use. This is perfectly understandable and logical. Any biologist who tried to submit that these habits were found in the DNA would be laughed out of the room. Everyone knows that while a weakness may be inherited in the DNA, a habit cannot be. The DNA may be able to give one a "propensity," but it cannot give one a "sin."

Are there "pleasure centers" in the brain? Where did they come from? How is acetylcholine made? Is it not encoded in the DNA? All the receptors are encoded in the DNA. They must be or we would not have them. Could sex be pleasureful even outside of marriage? Habits are definately reinforced by the DNA - again have you studied epigenetics?

• The old nature, born of blood and the will of the flesh, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The old ways, the hereditary tendencies, the former habits, must be given up; for grace is not inherited. The new birth consists in having new motives, new tastes, new tendencies. Those who are begotten unto a new life by the Holy Spirit, have become partakers of the divine nature, and in all their habits and practices they will give evidence of their relationship to Christ. When men who claim to be Christians retain all their natural defects of character and disposition, in what does their position differ from that of the worldling? They do not appreciate the truth as a sanctifier, a refiner. They have not been born again (RH April 12, 1892)

If you agree that the "propensity" toward sin is in the DNA, and this quote says they need to be removed, then what does this mean to you? Is it not interesting that this is called, being "born again"?

I'll give you a science example. Have you heard of the Agouti mouse? Google it. The agouti even made the cover of I think was, Time Magazine, January 6, 2010. You can have identical twin agouti mice, and they look completely different. The agouti gene can be triggered by environmental factors. BPA is one of those triggers. Exposure to BPA unmethylated the agouti gene, causing the mouse to have golden fur and to be obese, while an identical twin which did not have the gene unmethylated was brown and slender. Take away the environmental factor, and the gene remained on, and was passed to their offsping. And guess what, this persisted for several generations. So obesity and golden fur became an inherited trait which could be passed on for several generations. Did the mouse choose to be fat? No. But the genetic tendancy where preprogrammed. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

• By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin. Wrong tendencies, perverted appetites, and debased morals, as well as physical disease and degeneracy, are transmitted as a legacy from father to son, to the third and fourth generation. This fearful truth should have a solemn power to restrain men from following a course of sin. {PP 306.3}
• Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance, and has been cherished by many as a precious treasure. {HS 138.7}
• These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death. The Lord has given to the world Jesus Christ, and His work was to restore to the world the moral image of God in man, and to reshape the character. {13MR 14.1}

So Green, do you still deny that wrong tendencies, perverted appetities and physical disease are transmitted from father to son as an inheritance?

No, before sin, dogs did not die. Dogs die because of sin.

I said, the seeds of death in the system were planted by Satan. When Adam sinned, he opened the flood gates and lost dominion. Satan became the "prince of this world". See {Ed 26.3}.

Let's just stick to the Bible, ok?

Jesus was not a sinner, but He inherited the DNA of sinners. If the DNA carried sin, He would also have had sin.

If Jesus' DNA were not truly "human," then He never lived as one of us, and His entire life was a fictitious charade.

Therefore, it is impossible for the DNA to carry "sin."

If we speak of the "effects of sin," then certainly the DNA can have those. But the DNA cannot possibly carry sin itself.

What is sin?



Sin is an act. It is a transgression of the law, whether one is aware of the law or not. Transgressing the law equals "sin."

But DNA is not an act. DNA is a thing. DNA can be no more sinful than can water, formaldehyde, or sand. DNA contains information for how to make your arm. Is your arm "sinful?" If the DNA contains "sin," then your entire body is "sin." You cannot choose to have "holy flesh," so you would be impossibly incarcerated in a sinful condition with no hope of escape this side of the second advent.

It seems we are on such different wavelengths here that I am not able to cause my thoughts to be understood. It really doesn't matter what "epigenetics" are. They are not "sin." If you have a freckle on your face, it is not "sin." Even if it is melanoma, it is not "sin." Jesus died. If death is sin, He sinned. If the DNA have sin, He had it. If the pathways are present in the DNA, how did they get there?

When Jesus spoke the parable of the field being sown with tares, He was not referring to DNA. He was referring to people. The "wheat" represented the righteous. The "tares" represent the wicked. Righteous people don't have a "righteous gene," and wicked people don't have a "wicked gene." There is no such thing. They both have a choice. Character is built upon choices--lots of them. Character is NOT built upon genes.

In fact, if you want to say that the genes transmit sin and/or character, then I think you might be in agreement with published studies against the black people. They have a statistically high murder rate. They consistently perpetrate above-average rates of violent crime. I could go on...but this would be racist. If one race had more "sin" than another because of their DNA, it would seem that not all had a fair chance of redemption. Some had an advantage over others.

You see, to believe that sin is in the DNA opens up a huge can of worms. I don't believe that sin can be inherent to the DNA. Sin's effects, yes. Sin itself, not at all.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have often thought how interesting it is that in 1888 the message of righteousness by faith was introduced to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and yet we still forget all about that doctrine - especially in our definition of sin.

Sin is an addiction?

How can we be addicted to having other God's before the creator?

"Satan Cannot Enter the Mind Without Our Consent—We should present before the people the fact that God has provided that we shall not be tempted above what we are able to bear, but that with every temptation He will make a way of escape. If we live wholly for God, we shall not allow the mind to indulge in selfish imaginings. {AH 402.1}
If there is any way by which Satan can gain access to the mind, he will sow his tares and cause them to grow until they will yield an abundant harvest. In no case can Satan obtain dominion over the thoughts, words, and actions, unless we voluntarily open the door and invite him to enter. He will then come in and, by catching away the good seed sown in the heart, make of none effect the truth.7 {AH 402.2}

How does this fit with your understanding APL? It doesn't.

We are born with an unsanctified mind and because it is rare to have the influence of sanctified parents, the ultra majority of children have no restraint on the carnal temptations from Satan. Even if we do have sanctified parents the odds of our willingness to withstand temptation is built around our individual likes and dislikes. We chose our own path.

Jesus had the DNA of a descendant of Adam, yet He was also fully God. He overcame as a man and grants others to sit on His throne if we overcome through His strength.

APL, in the name of Jesus and in great angst I wish to ask you something. Are you a believer in the Spirit of Prophecy, that the SDA church is from God? Or are you here to fight against our beliefs?

Much of what you say is mixed with worldly influence and sophistry. Are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

I work with people with severe mental "disabilities" but most of them are the most loving people you would ever meet. They are not encumbered by the lusts of life nearly as much as the "beautiful" children of our world. They have a much lower level of temptations that they can give in to because of their dependence on others.

Parents with children of high needs also seem to be more grounded.

I think that God allows all of the illness, mutations and deformities that Satan has brought into our world as a way to humble us while stuck in this world of pain, so we can see the real picture in life.

I was born to beautiful parents, as rebellious as they come. My dad was the family hope, born to a war hero and beautiful mother, very strong and tall, he rebelled and became a biker. He ran away with my 16 year old beauty queen mother and started his own life as a 1% er. If anyone knows what this is, you know what I mean. He later became a 32nd degree Mason. I was born into this world of popularity and sin, encouraged to become a rock star.

Because of his natural abilities my dad designed his own world in rebellion to anything from God.

He built a life of money and partying and everyone loved him, the life of the party. But after I came through that influence and became lover of lust myself, to be humbled and see life for what God intended, it sure is a completely different world. God has given me this testimony.

Without God intervening in my life I would probably be dead by now. I would say 50% of the people I sinned with in my past life are dead, and that is a very high ratio when you consider I'm not yet 50.

I am being shown the true meaning of life through Christ, and because of this I am rejected as a son. Considered to be a bummer by their way of life. My dad has more respect for my brother who has spent 16 years in prison than he does for me.

I praise God for humbling me. But I do not blame Him for what I went through. It was not because I was born defective, but by way of the blessings God gave me that I abused myself to became such a sinner.

Sodom was an "easy" place of living. I was born in Sodom, but God called me out.

Sin is an act. It is a transgression of the law, whether one is aware of the law or not. Transgressing the law equals "sin."

Is thinking an act? One does not have to DO anything to sin, correct?

But DNA is not an act. DNA is a thing. DNA can be no more sinful than can water, formaldehyde, or sand. DNA contains information for how to make your arm. Is your arm "sinful?" If the DNA contains "sin," then your entire body is "sin." You cannot choose to have "holy flesh," so you would be impossibly incarcerated in a sinful condition with no hope of escape this side of the second advent.

Is it not the DNA per se which is sinful. It is the information that has been encoded in the DNA that is sinful. The paradigm still holds, and you can not change one jot or tittle of the code that God has written. His works are perfect. But we know the information in the DNA is not perfect. Please give me a scientific explanation of how that happened. Name me one useful virus. Did God create viruses?

It seems we are on such different wavelengths here that I am not able to cause my thoughts to be understood. It really doesn't matter what "epigenetics" are. They are not "sin." If you have a freckle on your face, it is not "sin." Even if it is melanoma, it is not "sin." Jesus died. If death is sin, He sinned. If the DNA have sin, He had it. If the pathways are present in the DNA, how did they get there?
I
Is Melanoma good or evil? Melanoma is 100% mobile genetic element driven.
Does DNA change? Oh yeah.
Again - a logic problem. Death is not sin. Death is caused by sin. Christ could be make to be sin. Sin is what killed Jesus. But He was not a sinner in that fact he "never participated in its sin". Thus also He could be resurrected from the second death which He experiences. If Christ paid the legal penalty of sin which is the second death, then how could He be resurrected?

Jesus died. He carried our sin in His body on the tree, 1 Peter 2:24. He was made to be sin for us, 2 Corinthians 5:21. EGW - Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {5BC 1131.3} Look at the grammer on how these quotations are put together. He took on the sin of the world, but never participated in it.

When Jesus spoke the parable of the field being sown with tares, He was not referring to DNA. He was referring to people. The "wheat" represented the righteous. The "tares" represent the wicked. Righteous people don't have a "righteous gene," and wicked people don't have a "wicked gene." There is no such thing. They both have a choice. Character is built upon choices--lots of them. Character is NOT built upon genes.

So EGW is wrong.
Selfishness is inwrought in our very being. It has come to us as an inheritance, and has been cherished by many as a precious treasure. {HS 138.7}
By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin. Wrong tendencies, perverted appetites, and debased morals, as well as physical disease and degeneracy, are transmitted as a legacy from father to son, to the third and fourth generation. This fearful truth should have a solemn power to restrain men from following a course of sin. {PP 306.3}
These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death. The Lord has given to the world Jesus Christ, and His work was to restore to the world the moral image of God in man, and to reshape the character. {13MR 14.1}

In fact, if you want to say that the genes transmit sin and/or character, then I think you might be in agreement with published studies against the black people. They have a statistically high murder rate. They consistently perpetrate above-average rates of violent crime. I could go on...but this would be racist. If one race had more "sin" than another because of their DNA, it would seem that not all had a fair chance of redemption. Some had an advantage over others.

You continually ignore the quotes. Sin is inherited and cultivated.

You see, to believe that sin is in the DNA opens up a huge can of worms. I don't believe that sin can be inherent to the DNA. Sin's effects, yes. Sin itself, not at all.

Could you please explain how sin affects all creation. How is it all creation groans together?

Here are just a couple of papers that look at mobile genetic elements and disease. Note the dates of publication. This stuff is recent. Textbook are usually many years behind the front edge of science.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/18/3/343.long
http://genomemedicine.com/content/1/10/97#B7
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qrh8830004g47401/

A whole list of disease are caused by these mobile genetic elements. Haemophilia, A and B, colon cancer, breast cancer, muscular dystrophy (CNV), down's syndrome, just to name a few. I can give you hundreds more. What is also interesting in this, is the body is constantly trying to suppress and remove the mobile genetic elements. From one article's conclusion, it says, "The finding of widespread examples of mobile elements contributing to disease, as well as additional avenues for introducing damage to the host genome, has generated some level of concern for the role of mobile elements in human health. Such concern provides incentive for a more thorough exploration of the impact of these elements on somatic cells, as opposed to simply focusing on the germline activities that contribute to their evolution. The wide range of mechanisms by which the host limits mobile-element activity strongly suggests the importance of repressing mobile elements. " If this stuff was what God created originally, then why is the body constantly trying to get rid of it? Genesis 3:15.

Yes, I am challenging the concepts of sin and salvation. Sin is more that a simple outward breaking the rules. It is real, and it is physical. It is an informational problem that has been placed into our DNA. And to remove it is a complex process, and I will go out further on my limb, vastly more complex then the original creation.

• He would have us comprehend something of his love in giving his Son to die that he might counteract evil, remove the defiling stains of sin from the workmanship of God, and re-instate the lost, elevating and ennobling the soul to its original purity through Christ's imputed righteousness. {RH, November 8, 1892 par. 2}