Generational Sin

[Edgarcito]

Fetal alcohol syndrome comes to mind....not certain if that's an exact representation

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Ed, I'm done until you make an actual well rounded post on your thoughts on the subject. A sentence or two here and there isn't going to work. At this point we don't even know where you stand or why you feel that this is valid. Come on man. Quit trying to dance around the subject. 

 

If you could make a post. Presenting your argument. And possibly addressing some of the questions that have already come up. Thatd be nice. And I guess fetal alcoholism would be the result of the mothers alcoholism. But that's because the baby was inside of her getting drunk with her. Not really God doing that one either. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Ed, I'm done until you make an actual well rounded post on your thoughts on the subject. A sentence or two here and there isn't going to work. At this point we don't even know where you stand or why you feel that this is valid. Come on man. Quit trying to dance around the subject. 

 

If you could make a post. Presenting your argument. And possibly addressing some of the questions that have already come up. Thatd be nice. And I guess fetal alcoholism would be the result of the mothers alcoholism. But that's because the baby was inside of her getting drunk with her. Not really God doing that one either. 

 

DB

I take the verse just for what it .... that our sins could affect our children for a few generations.  Fetal alcohol syndrome effects can be attributed to the mother and father's alcohol consumption if I'm not mistaken.  Drunkenness is a sin.  The epigenetic changes due to whatever the cause.....and I think the research is limited in scope at this time...apparently reverts after a few generations.  

 

Not sure what else you want me to say about it.  I think my interpretation of generational sin being gone in Christ is exactly the New Covenant.  

 

My question is what happens when one changed body breeds with another changed body before they revert.  Is this essentially disease?  Can we reverse engineer our behaviors back to A&E and speculate about their genetic makeup?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Maybe you could lend your expertise to the discussion.

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm going to try to stay on the sidelines as much as possible, as genetics is a large part of my profession, and this would seem to give me an unfair advantage.  But, in the role of moderator, I do have a vested interest in getting the conversation started, or at least in fostering understanding between our members.  Thanks.

My expertise as a biological scientist who can explain genetics to you, or my expertise as a former English teacher who can assist you with your reading comprehension?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

My expertise as a biological scientist who can explain genetics to you, or my expertise as a former English teacher who can assist you with your reading comprehension?

Either one you choose given your life perspective leaves you bound in both....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Either one you choose given your life perspective leaves you bound in both....

In that case, as a former English teacher, when someone uses the phrase "stay on the sidelines" in the colloquial sense, it is a declaration that they will not get involved.  

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think the confusion here, @Edgarcito, or the question on everyone's mind at the moment is:  What possible connection could you be trying to make between the possibility of pinkie mice developing an enhanced sensitivity to a certain odor as a result of torturous experiments their grandfather's endured, and the idea that god is going to punish Jeb for his dad's philandering ways?  If you could articulate that connection, preferably without too much word salad with vaguery dressing, it would give everyone a better idea of what this conversation is supposed to be about.  I'm going to try to stay on the sidelines as much as possible, as genetics is a large part of my profession, and this would seem to give me an unfair advantage.  But, in the role of moderator, I do have a vested interest in getting the conversation started, or at least in fostering understanding between our members.  Thanks.

Too late gene-ous   Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Too late gene-ous   Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Asking you to clearly state your position in a discussion is not the same as actively participating in said discussion, Ed.  Again, speaking as a former English teacher. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Guys, I'm starting to think this entire thread is a waste of time.  Ed, here, seems more interested in trolling than having a genuine discussion.  Y'all are welcome to keep spinning y’all's wheels if you want to; but do so knowing y’all ain't likely to get nowhere. 

[Edgarcito]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Guys, I'm starting to think this entire thread is a waste of time.  Ed, here, seems more interested in trolling than having a genuine discussion.  Y'all are welcome to keep spinning y’all's wheels if you want to; but do so knowing y’all ain't likely to get nowhere. 

And you two jackasses have good intentions?  Walter's sole purpose is to troll.  Your posts are filled with insults.  I already know my position on this subject.  Give DB some time to explore it himself.  He's doing a great job.  Yes, stand on the sideline.....bingo, you win.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Fetal alcohol syndrome

 

Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is a group of abnormalities in babies born to mothers who consume alcohol during pregnancy. It is the most common known non-genetic (non-inherited) cause of intellectual disability in the United States

 

https://childrenswi.org/medical-care/genetics-and-genomics-program/medical-genetics/teratogens/fetal-alcohol-syndrome-fas#:~:text=Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is,disability in the United States.

 

@TheRedneckProfessor can I get a lesson in the use of Non before a word? I guess that would be a prefix?

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

The epigenetic changes due to whatever the cause.....and I think the research is limited in scope at this time...apparently reverts after a few generations.  

 

Not sure what else you want me to say about it.  I think my interpretation of generational sin being gone in Christ is exactly the New Covenant.  

 

My question is what happens when one changed body breeds with another changed body before they revert.  Is this essentially disease?  Can we reverse engineer our behaviors back to A&E and speculate about their genetic makeup?  

 

Ok so what about the fact that these changes in genetics through generations are not limited to homosapiens? You still have not addressed this and it is a very crucial point. I don't think the scripture in question can really be related. 

 

Since this specific scripture came into play with the ten commandments and the mosaic law. Wouldn't that mean that it is no longer in effect? After all we are no longer under the law of sin but under grace right? 

 

Romans 6

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

Alcoholism and Genetics: Is Alcoholism Hereditary? - Alcoholism.org

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

1) Ok so what about the fact that these changes in genetics through generations are not limited to homosapiens? You still have not addressed this and it is a very crucial point. I don't think the scripture in question can really be related. 

 

2) Since this specific scripture came into play with the ten commandments and the mosaic law. Wouldn't that mean that it is no longer in effect? After all we are no longer under the law of sin but under grace right? 

 

Romans 6

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

 

DB

2) Jeremiah 31:31-34
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

 

I'll look into #1...haven't ever considered that question.  I shall return.... likely tomorrow.  Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

I see the NT verses just saying that there is salvation through Christ.  I don't see it as the process stopping.  My body can still pass on my behaviors to my progeny....apparently. 

 

 

I don't see that, it just says, imo, that if the son does not do as the father, he will live instead of die.....not choosing sin.

 

 

All I see is that it physically changes the progeny.  I don't have any feel for how that would affect the child.  We would assume in some manner.  It just changes the initial playing field for the child.  I would expect love to have different physical changes.  Likely how the changes express themselves would be very difficult to understand.  The submitted verses suggest that the offspring still have the ability to choose despite the father.  

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edgarcito,

 

 

In three separate posts you appear to use use the word 'see' in a particular way.  So, are you 'seeing' or 'not seeing' certain things by using your faith?

 

I ask because that might explain some of the disconnect and confusion between the four of us in this thread.

 

Three of us have no faith to 'see' certain things as you seem to see them, so it's little wonder that we are struggling.

 

Perhaps you could couch your argument in a strictly natural way, using only physical mechanisms and explanations?

 

If so, then we would all be on the same wavelength and we might get somewhere.

 

But, if you can only make your argument by evoking the supernatural, then I'm not sure that we can follow where you want us to go.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Guys, I'm starting to think this entire thread is a waste of time.  Ed, here, seems more interested in trolling than having a genuine discussion.  Y'all are welcome to keep spinning y’all's wheels if you want to; but do so knowing y’all ain't likely to get nowhere. 

 

Professor,

 

I've just submitted some thoughts for Edgarcito's attention and hopefully he'll back in the morning with some kind of response to them.

 

Also, let's not forget that it's not always an easy thing for someone to articulate their ideas in such a way that others can appreciate them.

 

When this happens it's usually best if all concerned adopt the same framework of thinking and try to operate exclusively within that.

 

But if no such common framework exists or if the parties involved cannot agree upon one, then the going is going to be... rough.

 

For what it's worth Prof, I'm interested to see what Ed comes up with tomorrow - rough or smooth.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I take the verse just for what it .... that our sins could affect our children for a few generations.  Fetal alcohol syndrome effects can be attributed to the mother and father's alcohol consumption if I'm not mistaken.  Drunkenness is a sin.  The epigenetic changes due to whatever the cause.....and I think the research is limited in scope at this time...apparently reverts after a few generations.  

 

Not sure what else you want me to say about it.  I think my interpretation of generational sin being gone in Christ is exactly the New Covenant.  

 

That's interesting, Ed.

 

So are you suggesting that we could detect genetic changes in someone after they give their life to Christ?  If so, then surely it wouldn't be too difficult to find evidence about this.  All we would have to do is find a sufficiently large genetic database and cross-reference it with people who were on that database before they saved.  Then these same people could be tested again to see if there are any changes to their genome.

 

If there were, that would be fascinating.

 

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

My question is what happens when one changed body breeds with another changed body before they revert.  Is this essentially disease?  Can we reverse engineer our behaviors back to A&E and speculate about their genetic makeup?  

 

Changed in what way please?  Revert in what way please?  Could you elaborate on what you mean here?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

2) Jeremiah 31:31-34
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

 

I'll look into #1...haven't ever considered that question.  I shall return.... likely tomorrow.  Thx.

Oh thank you. 

 

This specific generational curse was against the children of isreal. For worshipping other gods and turning against him. You just showed that when christ came he wrote the law in their hearts and minds and the would all know that he is the lord from the least to the greatest. 

 

Therefore this generational curse for turning against God was no longer needed after Jesus. 

 

Good job. I guess we are done here professor.

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

2) Jeremiah 31:31-34
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

 

I'll look into #1...haven't ever considered that question.  I shall return.... likely tomorrow.  Thx.

 

Ok seriously tho. You didn't explain what this scripture means to you pertaining to this subject. You can't just post a scripture and then expect me to read your mind because for me this scripture does support my thoughts more than yours. 

 

Or atleast what I think your thoughts are. Like I said I don't read minds. If I could I would have better luck in relationships. 

 

So what does this scripture in Jeremiah mean to you?

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Alcoholism and Genetics: Is Alcoholism Hereditary? - Alcoholism.org

I will agree. Addiction can be a hereditary trait. I come from a long line of alcoholics and am probably a functional alcoholic myself. 

 

But because you have the gene doesn't necessarily mean your going to be an addict. 

 

The thing is. Nowhere in the new testament does it say that sins will pass to the child. Or atleast nowhere that I know of.  I've been looking trying to find something. 

 

Everything I can think of only states that people will be punished for their own sins. In hell for the most part. That's a big reason why I think this teaching is no longer valid from the new testament forward. 

 

DB

 

Ps. Ill keep looking. Maybe we can find several scriptures that will kinda lay it out there and show us what's up. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

My expertise as a biological scientist who can explain genetics to you, or my expertise as a former English teacher who can assist you with your reading comprehension?

I know ya want to stay on the side lines for now. But I think its important that we show all the holes that we can in an argument against Christian assertions. So I hope after all other avenues have been explored you will enlighten us with your knowledge in genetics. I know next to nothing about genetics and would appreciate your thoughts. 

 

DB

[freshstart]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If you could articulate that connection, preferably without too much word salad with vaguery dressing, it would give everyone a better idea of what this conversation is supposed to be about.

Amen!

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Ok @Edgarcito,

 

I've looked everywhere and have found very few verses of scripture on this subject. I did find this Christian article that I think accurately addresses the issue. From a Christian perspective. We've already covered the scripture used here. And I think it is a huge leap to say God tampers with the genetics of our children based on a couple of scriptures describing a generational curse for Idolaters. 

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

 

Everything else I find says that everyone will be held accountable for their own sins. I don't see any mention of anyone thinking sins pass to the children in the new testament save for one instance. 

 

John 9

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

 

Here the apostles think that it could have been his parents sin that caused this man to be blind. Jesus said it wasn't anyone's sin but that he was blind so that God could make a miracle in his life. 

 

You had originally mentioned fetal alcohol syndrome. This is a direct result of the mothers sin of drinking. But it is not a hereditary genetic trait. There are many things that can cause birth defects in babies if the mother puts those things into her body while pregnant. This is not a result of God punishing the child for the mothers transgression. But a result of the mother causing her baby to be born this way due to her addictions. 

 

These genetic traits you are seeing can be either good or bad depending on what our ancestors endured. This is the slow process of evolution at work. Not the hand of an almighty God. In most cases our genetics will change to help us survive. If anything epigenetics supports evolution which is not a biblical concept. It is not limited to humans. But is a trait found in probably all areas of life on earth. Even plants. 

 

I think that alone disproves that "bad genes" have anything to do with sin. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Also @Edgarcito,

 

I was thinking about this as well. We just came off a thread where you argued that we have "freewill" to choose right from wrong. If God tampers with a childs genetics to make them more prone to alcoholism, addiction, obesity, or even sexual promiscuity. How would that be considered "free will?" There is no way free will can be true if god does that. That immediately puts a person at a disadvantage from birth. That doesn't sound like something an all loving God would do to someone if he really doesn't want people to perish but have life everlasting does it?

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I see the NT verses just saying that there is salvation through Christ.  I don't see it as the process stopping.  My body can still pass on my behaviors to my progeny....apparently. 

 

 

I don't see that, it just says, imo, that if the son does not do as the father, he will live instead of die.....not choosing sin.

 

 

All I see is that it physically changes the progeny.  I don't have any feel for how that would affect the child.  We would assume in some manner.  It just changes the initial playing field for the child.  I would expect love to have different physical changes.  Likely how the changes express themselves would be very difficult to understand.  The submitted verses suggest that the offspring still have the ability to choose despite the father.  

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edgarcito,

 

 

In three separate posts you appear to use use the word 'see' in a particular way.  So, are you 'seeing' or 'not seeing' certain things by using your faith?

 

I ask because that might explain some of the disconnect and confusion between the four of us in this thread.

 

Three of us have no faith to 'see' certain things as you seem to see them, so it's little wonder that we are struggling.

 

Perhaps you could couch your argument in a strictly natural way, using only physical mechanisms and explanations?

 

If so, then we would all be on the same wavelength and we might get somewhere.

 

But, if you can only make your argument by evoking the supernatural, then I'm not sure that we can follow where you want us to go.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

I think the Bible says that you can't see if I'm not mistaken.