The third and fourth generation ...

[Kendall K. Down]

God's warning that idolators would be held responsible "to the third and
fourth generation" may be a mere fact of nature rather than a vengeful God.

=========
Trauma can be passed down generations as study finds Rwanda genocide in
1994 chemically modified DNA of pregnant Tutsi women and their children:
Horror of event changed genes implicated in risk for PTSD and depression.

The Rwanda genocide may be over, but the terror lives on in the DNA of
victims and their offspring. A study found chemical modifications in
genes linked to mental disorders like PTSD.
=========

It used to be thought that our genes could not be altered by our life
experiences, but as the above news report from the Daily Mail shows,
that is not correct. Genes can be altered by what we do and experience
and those altered genes can be passed on to our children.

Of course the converse may also be true: if we life righteous lives, it
is possible that that may produce beneficial changes in our genes and
those changes will also be passed on to future generations.

The implications are interesting. Some people have objected to the idea
that God will destroy the wicked when Jesus comes on the basis that
untold numbers of "innocent" children would be destroyed without ever
having a chance for salvation. But what if, when Jesus comes, the wicked
have reached such a stage of rebellion against God that their genes and
the genes of their children have been irrevocably altered and there are
*no* innocent children?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <ss9t5g$8r4$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:43:28 +0000:

> The implications are interesting. Some people have objected to the
> idea that God will destroy the wicked when Jesus comes on the basis
> that untold numbers of "innocent" children would be destroyed without
> ever having a chance for salvation. But what if, when Jesus comes, the
> wicked have reached such a stage of rebellion against God that their
> genes and the genes of their children have been irrevocably altered
> and there are *no* innocent children?

I am wary of this argument and think it is spurious given the
capablilities of God. The argument that there are *no* innocent
children is better - assigning innocence to children may be the wrong
assumption in the minds of men here.

[Mike Davis]

Surely the concept is best described as 'Original Sin'?

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[John]

On 19/01/2022 20:43, Kendall K. Down wrote:


> The implications are interesting. Some people have objected to the idea
> that God will destroy the wicked when Jesus comes on the basis that
> untold numbers of "innocent" children would be destroyed without ever
> having a chance for salvation. But what if, when Jesus comes, the wicked
> have reached such a stage of rebellion against God that their genes and
> the genes of their children have been irrevocably altered and there are
> *no* innocent children?

If someone is punished "merely" because their parent(s) were wicked then
He isn't a loving God. Also behaviour is learned, not inherited, so I
don't believe there is such a thing as a wicked gene.

In fact I'd point you to Ezekiel 18:20 and John 9 healing of the blind man.

[Timreason]

"20The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share
the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the
child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and
the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

I've also heard this used as an argument for the Trinity, or at least,
the divinity of Christ. If God is both perfectly loving and perfectly
just, then He can't lay the punishment for sin on the innocent, which
would be unjust. If, however, Christ is God, then God has taken the
punishment upon Himself, which is both loving and just.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/01/2022 04:16, Madhu wrote:

> I am wary of this argument and think it is spurious given the
> capablilities of God.

We assume that God can do anything; practical experience demonstrates
that there are some things God chooses not to do. For example, normally
God does not intervene to stop Christians getting colds.

God specifically warns that if we worship idols, He will not intervene
to stop the resulting harm, even down through multiple generations.

> The argument that there are *no* innocent
> children is better - assigning innocence to children may be the wrong
> assumption in the minds of men here.

Well, traditional Christian teaching about Original Sin would agree that
there are no innocent children. Nevertheless, some claim to view
babyhood as a time before the child can sin or, more importantly, choose
to sin and profess to have a peculiar horror of God killing such young
children.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/01/2022 12:26, Mike Davis wrote:

> Surely the concept is best described as 'Original Sin'?

Indeed, as I have just pointed out to Madhu. Nevertheless, most
Christians have some sort of idea that God makes special provision for
babies (I believe your lot have something called Limbo). I'm merely
pointing out the possibility that because of their genetic inheritance,
even Limbo would be inappropriate for some babies.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/01/2022 12:26, John wrote:

> If someone is punished "merely" because their parent(s) were wicked then
> He isn't a loving God.

I think you need to be aware of the difference between punishment and
consequences. If God puts you into hell fire, that is punishment. If God
simply does not resurrect you because your genetic inheritance is too
bad, that is a consequence, not a punishment.

> Also behaviour is learned, not inherited, so I
> don't believe there is such a thing as a wicked gene.

The scientific study I quoted contradicts your position.

> In fact I'd point you to Ezekiel 18:20 and John 9 healing of the blind man.

Both of which refer to punishment, not to consequences.

We are familiar with the idea that things can be inherited. My wife has
bunions, almost certainly inherited from her mother and her grandmother
- and possibly even further into the past than that.

I see no reason to think that personality traits cannot also be
inherited, nor do I see any objection to such traits being sufficient to
keep a person out of God's perfect world. Of course (see another thread
I started this evening) if we recognise our imperfect personality traits
and seek God's help in overcoming and changing them, there is no reason
why God would keep us out of heaven based on inheritance.

[Mike Davis]

I've pointed out to you before that 'Limbo' just means 'margin' (ie 'a
question that has been put in the margin') - and has *never* been a
doctrine of the RCC. In short we do not know the answer.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Madhu]

* Mike Davis <j4t2n8...@mid.individual.net> :
Wrote on Thu, 20 Jan 2022 12:26:16 +0000:

I must have internalized it - even though the mind militates against
such a doctrine, I think it is inevitable given what I understand of the
the rest of the scripture.

It is easy to say "I cannot worship or respect a God who kills babies"
or "I cannot respect a God who is XXX" - I often see such statements and
sometimes feel the same way. Even if the assumptions are wrong (at
least for the time being) one would then be obliged to do just
that. (because "false-rationalizations are false" and because "let your
ayes be ayes")

[Kendall K. Down]

On 20/01/2022 22:24, Mike Davis wrote:

> I've pointed out to you before that 'Limbo' just means 'margin' (ie 'a
> question that has been put in the margin') - and has *never* been a
> doctrine of the RCC. In short we do not know the answer.

With your final statement I am in agreement. As for the other, it is a
curious fact that Protestants do not talk about Limbo. As you appear
confused about Catholic teaching, allow me to quote from the catechism
of Canon Cafferata:

=========
The Fifth Article
62. What is the fifth article of the Creed?
The fifth article of the Creed is, He descended into hell, the third day
He rose again from the dead.

63. What do you mean by the words, He descended into hell?
By the words He descended into hell I mean that, as soon as Christ was
dead, His blessed soul went down into that part of hell called limbo.

This is a most important article to understand, because it tells us
about the existence of a third state in the next world. Protestants, you
know, say that there are only two places or states in the next world
heaven and hell and, therefore, when a person dies I suppose they must
believe that his soul goes either straight to heaven or straight to
hell. We Catholics believe that there are three places or states in the
next world heaven, hell and purgatory. Of purgatory proper we shall
speak later on. Here we have to consider the existence of some third
state before the time of our Lord's coming on earth.

You will remember that I spoke to you about the fall of Adam and Eve.
After their fall the gates of heaven were closed against them and their
posterity and were only opened again by the death of Jesus Christ upon
the cross. This, as we all know, happened many thousand of years after
the creation of our first parents, and of course, many, many millions of
people lived and died during those years. The wicked were lost in hell;
but where did the good go to? God could not send them to hell, and you
must remember the gates of heaven were closed, so they must of necessity
have gone to some other place where God kept them until our Lord came to
redeem them.

This place was limbo and it was into this place that our Lord's blessed
Soul descended immediately after His death on the cross. He went there
to comfort the souls of the just and to tell them that they were
redeemed. Besides, our Lord Himself spoke of this third state or place.
When the good thief said to Him, as He was dying on the cross, Lord,
remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom, He answered, "Amen, I say
to thee, this day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise." That Paradise
could not mean heaven, for our Lord did not ascend there till the day of
the Ascension; it must, therefore, have meant the place whither Jesus
descended immediately after His death. You will now be able to
understand the next two questions of the Catechism.

64. What do you mean by limbo?
By limbo I mean a place of rest, where the souls of the just who died
before Christ were detained.

The word limbo means a border or fringe, here it means some place or
state on the outside or outskirts of hell.

65. Why were the souls of the just detained in limbo?
The souls of the just were detained in limbo because they could not go
up to the kingdom of heaven until Christ had opened it for them.

So you see that from the time of Adams fall there were three distinct
places or states of souls in the next world. If this third place was a
reality then, why cannot it be a reality now if there is a necessity for
it? We shall see later on that there is.
=========

I fear lest you have been led astray by all those wicked Protestants
with whom you associate and thus led to neglect "a most important
article to understand".

You will notice that Cafferata's explanation for the "margin" does not
agree with your suggestion that Limbo is in the margin of some text.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/01/2022 02:55, Madhu wrote:

> I must have internalized it - even though the mind militates against
> such a doctrine, I think it is inevitable given what I understand of the
> the rest of the scripture.

I have before now pointed out that Original Sin is comparable to the
position of my grandsons. I am an Australian citizen by birth. Because I
choose to live in Britain and my children do likewise, my grandchildren
cannot claim Australian citizenship. Through no fault of their own they
are British citizens, cut off from the land of the gum tree and koala.
Their children will also be in the same condition.

In the same way, Adam chose to repudiate his birth citizenship and
instead accept the devil's kingdom. Through no fault of our own, we
inherit that condition; we are the devil's subjects, not God's.

Just as my grandsons or their descendants could choose to move to
Australia and undergo a citizenship ceremony, so we can choose to move
to God's kingdom and undergo the approved ceremony - baptism.

> It is easy to say "I cannot worship or respect a God who kills babies"
> or "I cannot respect a God who is XXX" - I often see such statements and
> sometimes feel the same way. Even if the assumptions are wrong (at
> least for the time being) one would then be obliged to do just
> that. (because "false-rationalizations are false" and because "let your
> ayes be ayes")

People who say such things betray a facile misunderstanding of God and
of justice.

[Mike Davis]

On 21/01/2022 05:11, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 20/01/2022 22:24, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I've pointed out to you before that 'Limbo' just means 'margin' (ie 'a
>> question that has been put in the margin') - and has *never* been a
>> doctrine of the RCC. In short we do not know the answer.
>
> With your final statement I am in agreement. As for the other, it is a
> curious fact that Protestants do not talk about Limbo. As you appear
> confused about Catholic teaching, allow me to quote from the catechism
> of Canon Cafferata:

[Snip quote from the aforesaid gentleman; which you had been kind enough
to quote before, thank you!]

I note, btw, that Henry Taylor Cafferata was born in Birkenhead,
Liverpool on June 23rd 1849, & died 26th March 1922. So he's almost as
old as the founder of your Sect.

That was NOT his Catechism, but his *commentary* on the Catechism of his
day, - In which, I accept, the term 'limbo' was used.

> I fear lest you have been led astray by all those wicked Protestants
> with whom you associate and thus led to neglect "a most important
> article to understand".
>
> You will notice that Cafferata's explanation for the "margin" does not
> agree with your suggestion that Limbo is in the margin of some text.

It's a 'marginal note' NOT an article of doctrine, as I have explained
before. That's why it's come to be called 'limbo'.

It's a non-doctrinal attempt to explain the clear problem "Are those who
die in infancy without Baptism condemned to hell?" - which is behind the
RC (and other denoms) tradition of Baptising infants. That's all!

If you were to refer to the current Catholic Catechism (to which I have
referred you to before) - available on-line, and intended as a more
thorough and theological explanation of the Catholic Faith, you will
find NO reference to 'limbo'.

May I assure you that I am not confused about Catholic teaching.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Jason]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:43:28 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> God's warning that idolators would be held responsible "to the third and
> fourth generation" may be a mere fact of nature rather than a vengeful
> God.
>
> =========
> Trauma can be passed down generations as study finds Rwanda genocide in
> 1994 chemically modified DNA of pregnant Tutsi women and their children:
> Horror of event changed genes implicated in risk for PTSD and
> depression.
>
> The Rwanda genocide may be over, but the terror lives on in the DNA of
> victims and their offspring. A study found chemical modifications in
> genes linked to mental disorders like PTSD.
> =========
>
> It used to be thought that our genes could not be altered by our life
> experiences, but as the above news report from the Daily Mail shows,
> that is not correct. Genes can be altered by what we do and experience
> and those altered genes can be passed on to our children.

It looks an interesting study. Epigenetics (where genes are not
themselves altered, but their environment alters the way the body reads
them) will I'm sure result in many medical breakthroughs in the years to
come. An interesting quote from the article is that unlike genetic
mutations, this sort of change is 'stable but reversible' opening the
door to all kinds of treatment options.

Mind you, epigenetics aside, I imagine that any child conceived and
raised during a genocide will not have the easiest start in life. As the
report mentions, it will be interesting to see how this manifests in the
next generation (assuming that this first generation of offspring is no
longer in the same genocidal environment, that is).

[Jason]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 20:54:23 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 20/01/2022 12:26, John wrote:
>
>> If someone is punished "merely" because their parent(s) were wicked
>> then He isn't a loving God.
>
> I think you need to be aware of the difference between punishment and
> consequences. If God puts you into hell fire, that is punishment. If God
> simply does not resurrect you because your genetic inheritance is too
> bad, that is a consequence, not a punishment.
>
>> Also behaviour is learned, not inherited, so I don't believe there is
>> such a thing as a wicked gene.
>
> The scientific study I quoted contradicts your position.

Really?? I don't remember seeing mention of behaviour or indeed a
'wicked gene'. Or are you extrapolating from 'the offspring can be
predisposed to PTSD' to 'the offspring can inherit wickedness'??

Or are you imagining a court scene, 'Sorry your honour, my genes made me
do it' as being a reasonable defence?

> I see no reason to think that personality traits cannot also be
> inherited, nor do I see any objection to such traits being sufficient to
> keep a person out of God's perfect world.

Even if this were true, the Bible makes it clear that it is [unforgiven]
sin that keeps a person separated from God. I don't recall mention of
personality traits.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/01/2022 17:35, Mike Davis wrote:

> [Snip quote from the aforesaid gentleman; which you had been kind enough
> to quote before, thank you!]

My pleasure. The chap had various imprimateurs and nihil obstats, so I
presume he wasn't too far away from orthodox Catholic teaching.

> I note, btw, that Henry Taylor Cafferata was born in Birkenhead,
> Liverpool on June 23rd 1849,  & died 26th March 1922. So he's almost as
> old as the founder of your Sect.

I thought it was your boast that "Rome never changes"; if so, the
gentleman's age and period is irrelevant. Catholic teaching will be the
same in 1922 as in 2022.

> That was NOT his Catechism, but his *commentary* on the Catechism of his
> day, - In which, I accept, the term 'limbo' was used.

Fair enough. The title is "The Catechism Simply Explained".

> It's a non-doctrinal attempt to explain the clear problem "Are those who
> die in infancy without Baptism condemned to hell?" - which is behind the
> RC (and other denoms) tradition of Baptising infants. That's all!

Actually, Cafferata makes it clear that it explains where Jesus went
between death and resurrection.

> If you were to refer to the current Catholic Catechism (to which I have
> referred you to before) - available on-line, and intended as a more
> thorough and theological explanation of the Catholic Faith, you will
> find NO reference to 'limbo'.

You don't mean to say that Rome *has* changed? Tut tut! Whom can we trust?

> May I assure you that I am not confused about Catholic teaching.

Well, if Rome has changed, I have hopes that we will make Protestants of
you all in the end. After all, Cafferata characterised a belief in two
fates as Protestant and clearly didn't think much of it.

We might even get a married priesthood one day!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/01/2022 12:45, Jason wrote:

> It looks an interesting study. Epigenetics (where genes are not
> themselves altered, but their environment alters the way the body reads
> them) will I'm sure result in many medical breakthroughs in the years to
> come.

I don't believe that the study I quoted referred to epigenetics, but to
actual changes in the genome. Perhaps you have consulted a fuller
version than the brief mention in New Scientist?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/01/2022 13:23, Jason wrote:

>>> Also behaviour is learned, not inherited, so I don't believe there is
>>> such a thing as a wicked gene.

>> The scientific study I quoted contradicts your position.

> Really?? I don't remember seeing mention of behaviour or indeed a
> 'wicked gene'.

I was taking issue with the writer's claim that "behaviour is learned,
not inherited". That is the issue addressed by the study.

> Even if this were true, the Bible makes it clear that it is [unforgiven]
> sin that keeps a person separated from God. I don't recall mention of
> personality traits.

Personality traits inevitably manifest themselves in action (unless one
is aided and changed by God).

[Mike Davis]

On 21/01/2022 19:43, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 21/01/2022 17:35, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> [Snip quote from the aforesaid gentleman; which you had been kind
>> enough to quote before, thank you!]
>
> My pleasure. The chap had various imprimateurs and nihil obstats, so I
> presume he wasn't too far away from orthodox Catholic teaching.

True, but 'nihil obstat' merely means (effectively) 'no objection' - ie
no heresies have been introduced.

>
>> I note, btw, that Henry Taylor Cafferata was born in Birkenhead,
>> Liverpool on June 23rd 1849,  & died 26th March 1922. So he's almost
>> as old as the founder of your Sect.
>
> I thought it was your boast that "Rome never changes"; if so, the
> gentleman's age and period is irrelevant. Catholic teaching will be the
> same in 1922 as in 2022.

It's not that 'Rome never changes' - it's that Rome develops doctrine -
that's what Ecumenical ('whole Church') Councils are about.

>> That was NOT his Catechism, but his *commentary* on the Catechism of
>> his day, - In which, I accept, the term 'limbo' was used.
>
> Fair enough. The title is "The Catechism Simply Explained".

Sure!

>> It's a non-doctrinal attempt to explain the clear problem "Are those
>> who die in infancy without Baptism condemned to hell?" - which is
>> behind the RC (and other denoms) tradition of Baptising infants.
>> That's all!
>
> Actually, Cafferata makes it clear that it explains where Jesus went
> between death and resurrection.

I would suggest there's an implied 'In his opinion, based on his
understanding of limbo' - as we have no real evidence.

>
>> If you were to refer to the current Catholic Catechism (to which I
>> have referred you to before) - available on-line, and intended as a
>> more thorough and theological explanation of the Catholic Faith, you
>> will find NO reference to 'limbo'.
>
> You don't mean to say that Rome *has* changed? Tut tut! Whom can we trust?

Christian Faith develops and grows in understanding.

>> May I assure you that I am not confused about Catholic teaching.
>
> Well, if Rome has changed, I have hopes that we will make Protestants of
> you all in the end. After all, Cafferata characterised a belief in two
> fates as Protestant and clearly didn't think much of it.

I've said before that I wouldn't be an RC today without Vatican II.

>
> We might even get a married priesthood one day!

Indeed! (But remember that parts of the RC church do have it, including
the UK, but that's explained by CoE ministers conversions.)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/01/2022 22:01, Mike Davis wrote:

> True, but 'nihil obstat' merely means (effectively) 'no objection' - ie
> no heresies have been introduced.

And imprimateur?

> It's not that 'Rome never changes' - it's that Rome develops doctrine -
> that's what Ecumenical ('whole Church') Councils are about.

So first Rome invented - sorry, developed - the doctrine of Limbo and
now it is abandoning it. Which one was the error?

> I would suggest there's an implied 'In his opinion, based on his
> understanding of limbo' - as we have no real evidence.

Indeed we have no real evidence, but Cafferata seems clear that he is
teaching Catholic doctrine, not trumpetting his personal opinions.

> Indeed! (But remember that parts of the RC church do have it, including
> the UK, but that's explained by CoE ministers conversions.)

I'm not sure that counts!

[Jason]

That is clearly not true, there's nothing inevitable about it at all.
Most people have at least a modicum of self control and are not
completely at the mercy of their base animal instincts....

[Jason]

I don't have access to "New Scientist" but I believe this is the article
referred to:

https://www.usf.edu/news/2022/study-finds-rwandan-genocides-chemically-
modified-the-dna-of-victims-and-victims-offspring.aspx

It was published in "Epigenomics" so that should be a clue! :-)

Of course, you might be referring to a completely different study, I
don't know....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/01/2022 12:28, Jason wrote:

> That is clearly not true, there's nothing inevitable about it at all.
> Most people have at least a modicum of self control and are not
> completely at the mercy of their base animal instincts....

I hope my self-control is up to scratch as much as anyone else's, but
nevertheless, in certain situations I find the bad temper boiling up
inside me. I don't go and punch anyone - these days I don't even shout
at anyone - but the reaction is still there.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/01/2022 12:33, Jason wrote:

> Of course, you might be referring to a completely different study, I
> don't know....

It seems likely that that is the study referenced in the New Scientist
(but, of course, with a good deal more detail).

I was interested in their definition of "epigenetics", which I thought
referred to the way a gene is expressed, so gene ABA2 in one person may
result in X, but the same gene in another person may result in Y. The
article states, "Epigenetics refers to stable, but reversible, chemical
modifications made to DNA that help to control a gene’s function". I am
not sure whether that supports my understanding of the term or
contradicts it!

However, my previous understanding of epigenetics as affecting gene
expression was not something that could be inherited. You could inherit
ABA2 (a totally imaginary name, of course), but its expression still
depended on your personal chemistry, diet, circumstances, etc.

However this study finds that these changes, whatever term is correct,
have been passed down to the second generation and is now looking to see
whether they have been passed to the third generation.

Wouldn't it be interesting if these temporary changes only affected the
third or fourth generation and were weeded out by the fourth or fifth
generation?

[Jason]

Almost the entire teaching of Jesus on the matter of sin is about
resisting temptation, where whatever your particular temptation is
depends almost entirely on your personality. The temptations are not
sinful, acting them out is. We wouldn't even have the thin veneer of
civilisation that we do have if it were entirely no-holds-barred.

[Jason]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 20:22:42 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 24/01/2022 12:33, Jason wrote:
>
>> Of course, you might be referring to a completely different study, I
>> don't know....
>
> It seems likely that that is the study referenced in the New Scientist
> (but, of course, with a good deal more detail).
>
> I was interested in their definition of "epigenetics", which I thought
> referred to the way a gene is expressed, so gene ABA2 in one person may
> result in X, but the same gene in another person may result in Y. The
> article states, "Epigenetics refers to stable, but reversible, chemical
> modifications made to DNA that help to control a gene’s function". I am
> not sure whether that supports my understanding of the term or
> contradicts it!
>
> However, my previous understanding of epigenetics as affecting gene
> expression was not something that could be inherited. You could inherit
> ABA2 (a totally imaginary name, of course), but its expression still
> depended on your personal chemistry, diet, circumstances, etc.

Yes, I don't have a clear understanding of this either, but if pushed I
would have thought as you did and could not imagine it being able to be
passed down.

> However this study finds that these changes, whatever term is correct,
> have been passed down to the second generation and is now looking to see
> whether they have been passed to the third generation.

Yes, this is surprising to me. I'm interested to see what happens in the
third level, assuming the individuals are now not in the hostile
environemnt. It's well accepted (I think!) that things affecting the
mother during pregnancy can affect their offspring, so I could easily
imagine stress hormones (for example) in the mother affecting their
offspring from birth.

> Wouldn't it be interesting if these temporary changes only affected the
> third or fourth generation and were weeded out by the fourth or fifth
> generation?

Yes indeed! :-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/01/2022 11:05, Jason wrote:

> Almost the entire teaching of Jesus on the matter of sin is about
> resisting temptation

Which wouldn't be necessary if you were completely cleansed of sinning
at the moment of conversion - as some here have suggested.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/01/2022 11:12, Jason wrote:

> Yes, I don't have a clear understanding of this either, but if pushed I
> would have thought as you did and could not imagine it being able to be
> passed down.

Which is why this study is so interesting.

> Yes, this is surprising to me. I'm interested to see what happens in the
> third level, assuming the individuals are now not in the hostile
> environemnt. It's well accepted (I think!) that things affecting the
> mother during pregnancy can affect their offspring, so I could easily
> imagine stress hormones (for example) in the mother affecting their
> offspring from birth.

Yes. For example, it is well known that children born during the famine
in Holland when the Nazis nicked all the food, were affected as a
result. We also know that both mothers and fathers who smoke affect
their offspring. The interesting thing is not the short-term, once-only
effect, but that the genes are actually changed!

[John]

On 25/01/2022 20:46, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 25/01/2022 11:05, Jason wrote:
>
>> Almost the entire teaching of Jesus on the matter of sin is about
>> resisting temptation
>
> Which wouldn't be necessary if you were completely cleansed of sinning
> at the moment of conversion - as some here have suggested.

Don't misrepresent me, there's a good chap. I said Christians are made
righteous by Christ and are perfect in his sight. As Mike said,
Christians do continue to sin. Repentance makes them whole again.

[Timreason]

Also, Jesus had to resist temptation, yet He was without sin. So
resisting temptation IS necessary irrespective of whether one is
'completely cleansed of sinning'.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/01/2022 08:12, Timreason wrote:

> Also, Jesus had to resist temptation, yet He was without sin. So
> resisting temptation IS necessary irrespective of whether one is
> 'completely cleansed of sinning'.

A good point. Of course, it would be wonderful if we would always resist
temptation as He did, but as John pointed out, the solution is repentance.

[Jason]

Yes, but unlike 'normal' genetic mutations, these are reversible,
indicating that the original gene is in some way unchanged, but something
is happening on top of that. It's all very interesting.....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/01/2022 17:37, Jason wrote:

> Yes, but unlike 'normal' genetic mutations, these are reversible,
> indicating that the original gene is in some way unchanged, but something
> is happening on top of that. It's all very interesting.....

That was not my understanding. Epigenetics are reversible, but these
changes to the actual genome were, I thought, not reversible.

As you say, all very interesting.