Science & Sin.

[Technosoul]

In a story over at the Breaking News is a report about new discoveries in gene research. Apparently certain genes control our destiny relative to illnesses that often lead to death.

Are genes handed down from generation to generation? Such science might prove that the Bible is right about sin being handed down from generation to generation but showing us how. Because our DNA was handed down by our forefathers and foremothers.

Jesus said "what is the difference in saying you are forgiven of your sins and saying stand up and walk" when he was healing a sick person.

Now we cannot prove that such healings are possible with science but science can prove sickness can have generational roots, passed down from generation to generation. By genes (DNA). And they can now locate the "sin gene" for each kind of sickness.

Serious diseases genes revealed:

[SoylentGreen]

Technosoul Jesus said "what is the difference in saying you are forgiven of your sins and saying stand up and walk" when he was healing a sick person

.

The difference is that the term sin is only applicable to theists, where as an illness is applicable to all.

[Jagged]

Yeah, I'm not really understanding how the word sin is being used here. It doesn't really seem to apply at all.

[Jack]

Sin is a theological judgement applied to human behaviors. It isn't an objective reality. "Sin" cannot be tested in a lab. You might as well try to find the genetic origins of optimism.

[SoylentGreen]

genetic origins of optimism.

Well there's is probably a genetic code that compels us to breed and getting a women to want to breed with me is a pretty optimistic view point, so perhaps there one in he same.

[Technosoul]

It is true that in our modern day (and more realistic understanding) sin is thought of as doing something bad, re:behavior. But back in the bilbical days and using the words Jesus said, forgiving sin was the same as healing a patient with a medical problem. It right there in red and white.

The Bible says we are born in sin because the sins of the forefathers are handed down from generation to generation like a gene is.

We are born inside the genetic make-up that is handed down to us from our parents and their "family tree". Including some kinds of illnesses that the Bible claims are evidences of sin, or punishment for sins as is death (and even old age) because those in God's favor the Bible suggests have longer lives.

Needless to say this idea is of no interest to Atheists, science, or the average person who is more secular then religious. And modern day religions would like to downplay what the Bible said about sin and sickness are part of the same package, or that mental illness has anything to do with demons. Modern religions know that is silly in light of modern medicine, and yet a true fundamentalist and theist would believe that belief is part of the teachings of the Bible.

And the word sin is used in other ways as well, but none the less the Bible speaks about the "sin nature" of humans. And so to propose that this sin nature is our genetic make up would echo that concept.

The "by the book" theist is always looking for scientific proof that will support those biblical claims they read about and have faith in as being truisms. And this new scientific evidence might be the proof they are seeking to support the idea that the Bible is not just "fictional".

The real theist does not view sin as just an abstract concept but they believe it is something deeply rooted in human nature as a controlling influence that people must be saved from. Now science is going to save us from our wayward DNA deformities. Or at least they have faith that this will be possible based on the new gene mapping being done.

Genes might also effect behavaor trates as well, for all I know.
And they studied the DNA in blood samples. And want to take such samples to test people so they can know what sicknesses the person might expect later in life. It's in the bloodline. And what does the Bible say about "salvation' relative to blood? A lot.

The whole reason they promote the Virgin Birth idea is so that Jesus would not have any of the blood (DNA) in him from a earthly father, so that he can be discribed as being the only person born without sin.

This does not make bio-logical sense to a scientist. Or even possible.
But none the less the Bible writers thought and wrote it that way.

But now theists can upgrade the old terms (like the sin nature) by alternating modern words like "genetic make-up". And even have proof they know what they are talking about.

Right?

[Jack]

The Bible was written by scientific illiterates who thought illness was caused by bad spirits. How can you hope to examine 2000 year old superstitions in the light of modern science?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood The Bible was written by scientific illiterates who thought illness was caused by bad spirits. How can you hope to examine 2000 year old superstitions in the light of modern science?

I do not plan for scientists to study sin or bad spirits. The Adam and Eve story did not mention that a bad spirit came into Adam or that the sin is a spirit. Jesus did not heal people by casting out evil spirits, only once when the person seemed to have a mental problem.

Science has already discounted all this as fantasy, and would see no reason to study it or to prove anything biblical in nature. And paranormal science is interested in other matters.

The study on the genes was done already, all the theist must do is to present an explaination about how genetics, the studies done and those to be done as time passes, can apply to the statements in the bible about "hand-me-down" sin. I have provided some good "starters" for that purpose.

The curse of sin would be about geneitcs, death is contolled by our genes because they control the ageing processes, illnesses are not known to be caused by genes, in fact, DNA might control everything about us except our power to change those biological commands.
(once we know how). If "bad spirits" are manifested as "bad thoughts" then what causes that, could it be a deformed gene somewhere in the complexites of the DNA that sets the mold for our attitudes and what kinds of thoughts a individual is apt to express, or is the mind seperate from the way the rest of the body is formulated.

And what about how the skull is constructed, do genes determine the size of the skull, and if women have pain and suffering during childbirth because of the large head size of human babies, is that because of a genetic evolution that went a-muck?
Science does not know why our genes created that larger then primate head size, but they know it causes pain at childbirth and that is a somewhat of a novelty in nature.
What cursed the DNA genes to evolve the wrong head size? Was it punishment for the sins of Eve? Or a normal evolutionary event designed to aid our survival?

These ideas might make sense to a theist, would you not agree at least on that one point?

[Jack]

I just don't see how you propose to examine a philosophical term that has no consistent definition. Sin is a subjective perception. A hypothesis requires you to define your terms at the very least. There's no objective standard for sin, evil, base or bad. If you can't define the terms, how can you test for a genetic causation?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood I just don't see how you propose to examine a philosophical term that has no consistent definition. Sin is a subjective perception. A hypothesis requires you to define your terms at the very least. There's no objective standard for sin, evil, base or bad. If you can't define the terms, how can you test for a genetic causation?

I did define it relative to biblical storytelling. Sin is the physical medical problem - in healing the medical condition Jesus said "your sin is forgiven". Sin and sickness are the same thing in the eyes of Jesus and anyone who thinks like he did. Disease is the physical appearence of the sin nature. In theology the mind, body and spirit are all one idenity and called the human being. As science continues to prove that the orgins of how the human being is controlled by these hand-me-down genes we can project they will find out that everything that makes up what is human is related to that genetic influence.

[Kuldeep]

I too do not agree with this view point of yours, Techno !

Death is inevitable. This knowledge, we learned by way of our day to day experience. What science has found out now, is that the hidden tool (dangerous disease creating gene) exist which causes that pre-fixed death. This gene proves that living body is not immortal. It contains something which makes the death of living being certain. This is our observation also.

You cannot term it as punishment for commiting some sin by adam and eve. This is too much of speculation than reality.

[SoylentGreen]

Technosoul Including some kinds of illnesses that the Bible claims are evidences of sin, or punishment for sins

I am not sure but were the diseases refered to in the bible not genetic based but viral such as leprosy.
If you can show that any of the illnesses that jesus cured were genetically based and not viral or that the insanity he cured was from a genetic cause and not viral or social then you could try and relate sin and genetics,
But if all the illness are viral based or any case can be made that the illnesses cannot be proved to be genetic then your theory has a problem.

The real theist does not view sin as just an abstract concept but they believe it is something deeply rooted in human nature as a controlling influence that people must be saved from.Now science is going to save us from our wayward DNA deformities.

Would not the real theist consider that people should only be saved through there own prefered method of believing in god.
Any attempt by science to find a cure for illness (sin) would be taken as interference in their own way of doing this.
Once again we would have a situation where a belief that has no backing but faith is in opposition and will try to condemn a method of improving peoples lives through knowledge.
So I am saying, have you considered all the ramifications of supporting this arguement.

[rmnunez]

Hitler had some ideas about the genetic purificaition of the human race. And conducted some research that was repulsive. (to say the least). Modern genetic research does not want to be haunted by the shadows of Hitler nor do they want people to tag them with the "hilter card". Needless to say a lot of possiblities that gene research could make realistic are not spoken about and pushed "out of sight and out of mind". Your remark is not helping them out much, nor mine I guess. Like nukes and nuclear energy we want to look on the bright side and think about the good things that new genetic technology might offer. Without need of a crystal ball I can predict that future news stories will report about protesters who are trying to ban the research labs from perfecting their science, motivated by fear and for religious ideas about "not playing god".

I would not hesitate in suggesting an abortion to a patient whose fetus was diagnosed with some terrible deformity, degenerative condition or genetic disease. If this was the result of genetic material, it makes sense to interdict it before an abortion is necessary. This is why sexual relations among patients in mental institutions are discouraged.

It would be ridiculous to take the opposite tack saying people with these genetically transmitted diseases are endowed with some sort of collective right to non-discrimination on the basis of their different ability, then we'd need to tabulate what proportion and in what degree of impairment a fetus should be allowed to continue gestation.

Delivering babies with deformities, degenerative conditions and genetic diseases ought to be avoided to the degree we cannot mitigate their suffering. The problem is with the slope. We'd all agree its best to abort a fetus with any of the worse diseases that cause the most agonic suffering, but what about things like diabetes or epilepsy?

And how about if you go for positive traits? That's when you get into those Hitlerian schemes, only blue-eyed blondes of tall parents... But now, examining vast databases as people get sampled, we can cull from these the strongest strains of the best genetic features to build a master race. A breed of genetically select people resistant to disease.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kuldeep I too do not agree with this view point of yours, Techno ! Death is inevitable. This knowledge, we learned by way of our day to day experience. What science has found out now, is that the hidden tool (dangerous disease creating gene) exist which causes that pre-fixed death. This gene proves that living body is not immortal. It contains something which makes the death of living being certain. This is our observation also. You cannot term it as punishment for commiting some sin by adam and eve. This is too much of speculation than reality.

I agree with your logic. Which might surprise you. I do not think it was a punishment as some biblical interpreters might imagine. It could be that Adam was just told about the effects that the gene would cause, the question is were the genes effected by some chemicals that Adam ate from some tree? Is that possible. Can chemicals added to the diet change the structuring of our genes - re: drugs?

What would cause the larger then primate skull in humans? What in the enviroment caused that evolutionary change in humans that is not common in other primates? The diet would be one of the first places science would look at for possible answers. After all, the genes are composed of chemical combinations.

As we grow our brain produces growth harmones, but when we mature the production of growth harmones stop and then the ageing processes set in. A gene, or perhaps a combination of genes, is the cause.

In animals the Dinosaur keep growing and just got bigger and bigger without the ageing processes to stop such continued growth. Not so later on when mammals and humans dominated the earth.

The wisdom is the gene of the Dinosaurs (anology - serpent in the tree) and that is why they could keep growing but that was changed with the apperance of warm blood anamals ( including primates and humans), now the genes have limited growth potentials coded into the system.

[Maybe-not]

That is crazy. First of all, there is no god.

If there were, he'd realize that Children are without sin, they are pure.
As such, no "sins" would be passed down, the concept is crazy.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Maybe-not That is crazy. First of all, there is no god. If there were, he'd realize that Children are without sin, they are pure. As such, no "sins" would be passed down, the concept is crazy.

A baby can get sick just like an adult. Not because they did something bad, but because it is genetically possible.

What you are speaking about is awareness, the innocent are not aware of the knowledge yet.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Technosoul A baby can get sick just like an adult. Not because they did something bad, but because it is genetically possible. What you are speaking about is awareness, the innocent are not aware of the knowledge yet.

I talk about the idea of inheriting a sin. And sickness is naturally genetic, there is not "big man" anywhere, who decides who get sick.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rmnunez I would not hesitate in suggesting an abortion to a patient whose fetus was diagnosed with some terrible deformity, degenerative condition or genetic disease. If this was the result of genetic material, it makes sense to interdict it before an abortion is necessary. This is why sexual relations among patients in mental institutions are discouraged. It would be ridiculous to take the opposite tack saying people with these genetically transmitted diseases are endowed with some sort of collective right to non-discrimination on the basis of their different ability, then we'd need to tabulate what proportion and in what degree of impairment a fetus should be allowed to continue gestation. Delivering babies with deformities, degenerative conditions and genetic diseases ought to be avoided to the degree we cannot mitigate their suffering. The problem is with the slope. We'd all agree its best to abort a fetus with any of the worse diseases that cause the most agonic suffering, but what about things like diabetes or epilepsy? And how about if you go for positive traits? That's when you get into those Hitlerian schemes, only blue-eyed blondes of tall parents... But now, examining vast databases as people get sampled, we can cull from these the strongest strains of the best genetic features to build a master race. A breed of genetically select people resistant to disease.

What I think they hope to do is to simply remove, replace, or "fix" the defective gene that might cause genetic diseases (etc.) rather then conducting a total abortion. They would abort only the gene and not the rest of the fomulating baby. Like organ transplants they might do gene transplants in the future, especially if stem cell research gives them the knowledge to creating genes taylor made for that purpose. But like I said this would be done without hinting at the master race concepts of Hitler. But critics would use the hitler card. I think the ideas you outlined will be the future of science and medicene and with the full co-operation of parents who I feel sure would want healthy babies. However rejecting such science might have legal repremands if a parent refused medical treatments that could have prevented the child's suffering later.
A current trends would suggest that might be the case.

But it is also a matter of who is in charge and if they would use the technology to interfer with the individualistic differences in people.
Removing the "gay gene" for example after such is approved by the parents. Right or wrong? Removing the gene that is linked to people becoming religious fundamentalists - so that we have no one to object to science - right or wrong? And doing genetic operations before birth instead of plastic surgery after birth so we have "beautiful children"... right or wrong? Do people have a "morality gene"?

We are opening new doors to yet unknown possiblities and so some people are caught un-prepared for such realities and feel un-easy about what all this future technology will yeild. But perhaps too late...it is started and will continue to unfold. For better or worse society must adapt to the existance of this new scientific vision or else backtrack into the dark ages.

Death is still not avoidable. For even if they removed the gene that shuts down the growth harmones you could get run over by a bus and die.
However with gene re-designing you could delite the ageing processes and the death that such degeneration causes. As long as you avoided all external conditions that might kill you, and did proper maintanence (eating food and so forth) you could live forever. Like the dinosaur gene of primitive times. Science has indicated that some ocean fish do not get old and die, they only die if killed by a preditor or other external problems in the environment. Of course, sooner or later that would happen to them. On the food chain humans have few animal preditors to deal with, a gun can kill a lion. It is the most ancient of preditors that we have the most fear of in the food chain, the microscopic preditors. According to the bible we should dominate the animals - done a pretty good job in that respect - next on the list are the micro-organisms, with our own science such might be possible to fullfill what we were commanded to take charge of.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Maybe-not I talk about the idea of inheriting a sin. And sickness is naturally genetic, there is not "big man" anywhere, who decides who get sick.

We leave that determination in the hands of tiny germs, them little demons that sneak into our system when we open the doors of our negative emotions so that our natural security systems are left unlocked.

Were people born with the emotions of anger and fear, and a nature that can become excitable? Do babies cry, scream, and throw fits because they made a "free will choice" to do so? I do not think you got the whole picture.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Technosoul I agree with your logic. Which might surprise you. I do not think it was a punishment as some biblical interpreters might imagine. It could be that Adam was just told about the effects that the gene would cause, the question is were the genes effected by some chemicals that Adam ate from some tree? Is that possible. Can chemicals added to the diet change the structuring of our genes - re: drugs? What would cause the larger then primate skull in humans? What in the enviroment caused that evolutionary change in humans that is not common in other primates? The diet would be one of the first places science would look at for possible answers. After all, the genes are composed of chemical combinations. As we grow our brain produces growth harmones, but when we mature the production of growth harmones stop and then the ageing processes set in. A gene, or perhaps a combination of genes, is the cause. In animals the Dinosaur keep growing and just got bigger and bigger without the ageing processes to stop such continued growth. Not so later on when mammals and humans dominated the earth. The wisdom is the gene of the Dinosaurs (anology - serpent in the tree) and that is why they could keep growing but that was changed with the apperance of warm blood anamals ( including primates and humans), now the genes have limited growth potentials coded into the system.

Techno, you are becoming a budding spura-gene modifier. Your immagination is begining to touch sky! Good luck to you.

My imagination in the field of gene and RNA & DNA modification is limited. Till I can understand how billions of genes are produced in living animals, human in particular, I can not comment with any authority. Some genome specialist could be helpful to remove doubts you have in your mind. I am not even biologist.

As a refresher here and from what I know, I can tell you that a set of genes are fixed at the time of fertilization of egg with sperm. Bunch of 64 chromosomes are responsible for all the genes, RNA and DNA etc of an individual. I am not aware of genes in either egg or sperm and their differences if any !!! Though, I further know that the whole physical structure, internal organs, defects & deformities, intelligence IQ etc all in a person is decided based on 64 chromosomes.

Whether diet has any effect on the formation or degeneration of any particular type of gene.....I not not sure, but feel genes won't be changed with diet but, yes diet does affect physical as well as mental behaviour of a person.

Your suggested experiments with gene modification might be dangerous. To approach for expecting a beautiful girl may end up with a ugly girl or might be we get a witch or demon instead. We have to be very causious in whole of the matter in developing such technology for gene modification.