Genesis 2:21: Sex and the Origins of Death.

[John D. Brey]

In another forum I began a discussion (I'd like to continue here) of Sex and the Origins of Death. I began the discussion with this statement:

In Professor William R. Clark's brilliant book, Sex & The Origins of Death, he points out the difference between accidental death, death to an organism based on factors external to the organism, versus "programmed death"; the latter being death required by the dictates, so to say, of the cell itself, its programming. He shows that this "programmed death," packaged in the cell-instructions themselves, appears to have arisen about the time the cells began experimenting with sex. He quips that sex may have indeed been the ultimate loss not only of innocence, but that it's also the genesis (2:21), of senescence, and thus programmed death.
​

John

 

[exchemist]

In another forum I began a discussion (I'd like to continue here) of Sex and the Origins of Death. I began the discussion with this statement:

In Professor William R. Clark's brilliant book, Sex & The Origins of Death, he points out the difference between accidental death, death to an organism based on factors external to the organism, versus "programmed death"; the latter being death required by the dictates, so to say, of the cell itself, its programming. He shows that this "programmed death," packaged in the cell-instructions themselves, appears to have arisen about the time the cells began experimenting with sex. He quips that sex may have indeed been the ultimate loss not only of innocence, but that it's also the genesis (2:21), of senescence, and thus programmed death.
​

John

Wasn't it also around the time that cells started containing mitochondria?

 

[101G]

In another forum I began a discussion (I'd like to continue here) of Sex and the Origins of Death. I began the discussion with this statement:

In Professor William R. Clark's brilliant book, Sex & The Origins of Death, he points out the difference between accidental death, death to an organism based on factors external to the organism, versus "programmed death"; the latter being death required by the dictates, so to say, of the cell itself, its programming. He shows that this "programmed death," packaged in the cell-instructions themselves, appears to have arisen about the time the cells began experimenting with sex. He quips that sex may have indeed been the ultimate loss not only of innocence, but that it's also the genesis (2:21), of senescence, and thus programmed death.
​

John

That's a good theory, but not say any is right or wrong, but consider this.I would go with necrosis, which means cell death due to disease or injury. not a injury as in accidental (phyiscal) or programmed death, but a choice or choices of DEATH. in a necrosis state, When untreated, the dying cells release substances that lead to the death of surrounding cells, so untreated necrosis can lead to death, so death can be progressive, or reversable, so it's not certian. example in supportive scripture, . Genesis 2:16 & 17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" 17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.". well Adam didn't die in that same 24hr day, but it was progressive. sin is a disease when unchecked is a progressive death, for the "wages" of sin is DEATH. and DEATH can occure from Anxiety. which is more mental or spiritual in nature. so I don't believe Genesis 2:21 with the invention of Sex is the only or pre req.cause of some deaths. but don't hold me to that, ok.

but there is something else to consider. a bone is a mineralized connective tissue that exhibits four types of cells. but also notice our bones are who we are. not our flesh. it is the bones which are resurrected and not the natural flesh. and Eve was made, from the same bones, and flesh as Adam but not from blood. which bones play a key role in.

so we should examine or start with the bones.

PICJAG.

 

[whirlingmerc]

In another forum I began a discussion (I'd like to continue here) of Sex and the Origins of Death. I began the discussion with this statement:

In Professor William R. Clark's brilliant book, Sex & The Origins of Death, he points out the difference between accidental death, death to an organism based on factors external to the organism, versus "programmed death"; the latter being death required by the dictates, so to say, of the cell itself, its programming. He shows that this "programmed death," packaged in the cell-instructions themselves, appears to have arisen about the time the cells began experimenting with sex. He quips that sex may have indeed been the ultimate loss not only of innocence, but that it's also the genesis (2:21), of senescence, and thus programmed death.
​

John

The origin of death was when sin entered the world.
Man sinned and death followed
"the wages of sin is death"

 

[nPeace]

In another forum I began a discussion (I'd like to continue here) of Sex and the Origins of Death. I began the discussion with this statement:

In Professor William R. Clark's brilliant book, Sex & The Origins of Death, he points out the difference between accidental death, death to an organism based on factors external to the organism, versus "programmed death"; the latter being death required by the dictates, so to say, of the cell itself, its programming. He shows that this "programmed death," packaged in the cell-instructions themselves, appears to have arisen about the time the cells began experimenting with sex. He quips that sex may have indeed been the ultimate loss not only of innocence, but that it's also the genesis (2:21), of senescence, and thus programmed death.
​

John

Sex did not happen until Genesis 4:1.
The process of deterioration did not occur then, but begun, apparently, with separation from 'the life that belongs to God' - Genesis 3:22-24

 

[John D. Brey]

Wasn't it also around the time that cells started containing mitochondria?

. . . Would that relate to anything in the scripture?



John

 

[exchemist]

. . . Would that relate to anything in the scripture?



John

I shouldn't think so, but then nor does apoptosis and the development of sexual reproduction.

As far as scripture is concerned, there does not seem to be anything linking sex with death, so far as I can see.

 

[John D. Brey]

That's a good theory, but not say any is right or wrong, but consider this.I would go with necrosis, which means cell death due to disease or injury. not a injury as in accidental (phyiscal) or programmed death, but a choice or choices of DEATH. in a necrosis state, When untreated, the dying cells release substances that lead to the death of surrounding cells, so untreated necrosis can lead to death, so death can be progressive, or reversable, so it's not certian. example in supportive scripture, . Genesis 2:16 & 17 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" 17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.". well Adam didn't die in that same 24hr day, but it was progressive. sin is a disease when unchecked is a progressive death, for the "wages" of sin is DEATH. and DEATH can occure from Anxiety. which is more mental or spiritual in nature. so I don't believe Genesis 2:21 with the invention of Sex is the only or pre req.cause of some deaths. but don't hold me to that, ok.

but there is something else to consider. a bone is a mineralized connective tissue that exhibits four types of cells. but also notice our bones are who we are. not our flesh. it is the bones which are resurrected and not the natural flesh. and Eve was made, from the same bones, and flesh as Adam but not from blood. which bones play a key role in.

so we should examine or start with the bones.

PICJAG.

. . . Why do you think our bones are who we are rather than our flesh and blood?

In orthodox theology, the original sin is passed down through the male in sex. So taken as a mythological presentation of the science, there's a relationship between what Professor Clark says about sex and death, and what the Bible says.

Btw, regarding eating from the tree, many Jewish scholars have shown that "eating" has a relationship to "sex" in the scripture. There are many places in the scripture, and in Jewish symbolism and ritual, where eating is a symbol veiling sex.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The origin of death was when sin entered the world.
Man sinned and death followed
"the wages of sin is death"

. . . What was the sin that led to death?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Sex did not happen until Genesis 4:1.

. . . Not according to Rashi exegeting the Hebrew text.

Interpreted properly Genesis 4:1 doesn't say that Adam knew Eve, as is the case whenever sex is being discussed. The Hebrew wording is different. According to Rashi it implies Adam had pre-knowledge of why Eve was going to have a child.


John

 

[exchemist]

. . . What was the sin that led to death?



John

Disobedience to God's command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[John D. Brey]

As far as scripture is concerned, there does not seem to be anything linking sex with death, so far as I can see.

. . . Are you unfamiliar with the church teaching on "original sin"?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Disobedience to God's command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

. . . Eating is a metaphor for sex in various places in the Bible. Furthermore Eve's punishment for "eating" is painful childbirth and not painful constipation or diarrhea.



John

 

[exchemist]

. . . You're unfamiliar with the church teaching on "original sin"?



John

No I don't think so. Sex has nothing to do with it, according to my understanding. Original sin is a disposition towards evil from human weakness.

The Genesis story is an allegory for Man's acquisition of moral awareness as he evolved, combined with the recognition that, even being aware of the difference between right and wrong, he often chooses wrong due to this human weakness. Anyone who is a parent will recognise the poignant, double-edged nature of a child growing up: growth of knowledge combined with loss of innocence.

 

[exchemist]

. . . Eating is a metaphor for sex in various places in the Bible. Furthermore Eve's punishment for "eating" is painful childbirth and not painful constipation or diarrhea.



John

What rot. And what a thoroughly unpleasant theology.

 

[101G]

. . . Why do you think our bones are who we are rather than our flesh and blood?

In orthodox theology, the original sin is passed down through the male in sex. So taken as a mythological presentation of the science, there's a relationship between what Professor Clark says about sex and death, and what the Bible says.

Btw, regarding eating from the tree, many Jewish scholars have shown that "eating" has a relationship to "sex" in the scripture. There are many places in the scripture, and in Jewish symbolism and ritual, where eating is a symbol veiling sex.



John

natural flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom, but glorified flesh and bone can, supportive scripture, Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have". and that flesh he had on was quicken, or changed. when one dies, their flesh return to the earth/dust, but not the bones. notice when our Lord rose, he had glorified flesh, and his bones, but no BLOOD. the vally of dry bones in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel lets us know that our new bodies is from heaven, as the apostle Paul
2Cor 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. God as said in Ezekiel will lay sinews, flesh, and skin on us in the resurrection. so as the apostle clearly states,
1Cor 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
1Cor 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

so if we die before he comes back, a new house/body is ready when he comes again. and if alive at his coming, "changed.

so our bones, the base/support of the body don't return to the dust, a new body await us, so our bones are very important. this is where Eve came from.


now other point. a child is of his/her father, but by his/her mother

PICJAG

 

[John D. Brey]

No I don't think so. Sex has nothing to do with it, according to my understanding. Original sin is a disposition towards evil from human weakness.

Men can externally entice other men to sin as the devil does; but there has also been a special human way in which man has caused sin in others, and that is by inheritance. St. Paul says Sin came into the world through one man. He doesn't only mean that Adam gave us an example of sin, for this is attributed rather to the devil: Death came into the world through the devil's envy. Rather he means that sin was inherited from Adam as our first parent. This is a matter of Catholic faith, and it is the reason why even newly-born babies are brought to be baptized as if to be washed clean from some infection of guilt. To deny this was Pelagius' heresy, which Augustine exposed in a great many works. . .

What is genetically transmitted in the semen is human nature and, together with that nature, its sickness. The newborn child shares in the guilt of the first parent inasmuch as his nature is brought into being by a reproductive movement from that parent. . . Death has spread to the whole human race inasmuch as all have sinned. Catholic faith holds firmly that all men deriving from Adam, Christ alone exempted, contracted inherited sin from him; otherwise not everyone would need Christ's redemption and that is erroneous. . .

As Adam transmits his sin to all who are bodily reproduced by him, so Christ transmits his grace to all who are spiritually reproduced by him through faith and baptism . . . Only those who are descended from Adam by being brought into existence by the active power of reproduction inherited from him will contract inherited sin from him. Someone fashioned from human flesh by divine power --- a power clearly not inherited from Adam -- would not contract inherited sin. . . Natural science teaches us that the father is the active partner in reproduction and that the mother's part is only to provide the material. So inherited sin is contracted through the father and not the mother. If Eve had sinned without Adam their children would not have inherited sin. Nor would they have inherited death and the other natural ills that flesh is heir to. . . .​

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

What rot. And what a thoroughly unpleasant theology.

. . . Which is why the scripture is full of veils, metaphors, and allegory. So some people who find its truths unpleasant can carry on without being offended.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

natural flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom, but glorified flesh and bone can, supportive scripture, Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have". and that flesh he had on was quicken, or changed. when one dies, their flesh return to the earth/dust, but not the bones. notice when our Lord rose, he had glorified flesh, and his bones, but no BLOOD. the vally of dry bones in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel lets us know that our new bodies is from heaven, as the apostle Paul
2Cor 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. God as said in Ezekiel will lay sinews, flesh, and skin on us in the resurrection. so as the apostle clearly states,
1Cor 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
1Cor 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

so if we die before he comes back, a new house/body is ready when he comes again. and if alive at his coming, "changed.

so our bones, the base/support of the body don't return to the dust, a new body await us, so our bones are very important. this is where Eve came from.


now other point. a child is of his/her father, but by his/her mother

PICJAG

. . . I'm not sure what the question or problem is that this is addressing?



John

 

[exchemist]

Men can externally entice other men to sin as the devil does; but there has also been a special human way in which man has caused sin in others, and that is by inheritance. St. Paul says Sin came into the world through one man. He doesn't only mean that Adam gave us an example of sin, for this is attributed rather to the devil: Death came into the world through the devil's envy. Rather he means that sin was inherited from Adam as our first parent. This is a matter of Catholic faith, and it is the reason why even newly-born babies are brought to be baptized as if to be washed clean from some infection of guilt. To deny this was Pelagius' heresy, which Augustine exposed in a great many works. . .

What is genetically transmitted in the semen is human nature and, together with that nature, its sickness. The newborn child shares in the guilt of the first parent inasmuch as his nature is brought into being by a reproductive movement from that parent. . . Death has spread to the whole human race inasmuch as all have sinned. Catholic faith holds firmly that all men deriving from Adam, Christ alone exempted, contracted inherited sin from him; otherwise not everyone would need Christ's redemption and that is erroneous. . .

As Adam transmits his sin to all who are bodily reproduced by him, so Christ transmits his grace to all who are spiritually reproduced by him through faith and baptism . . . Only those who are descended from Adam by being brought into existence by the active power of reproduction inherited from him will contract inherited sin from him. Someone fashioned from human flesh by divine power --- a power clearly not inherited from Adam -- would not contract inherited sin. . . Natural science teaches us that the father is the active partner in reproduction and that the mother's part is only to provide the material. So inherited sin is contracted through the father and not the mother. If Eve had sinned without Adam their children would not have inherited sin. Nor would they have inherited death and the other natural ills that flesh is heir to. . . .​

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia.​

John

Sure, but Aquinas is writing about the distinction between Christ's conception and ours, that's all. He is alleging original sin is passed through the male line, since he see the male role as being the active one in reproduction, - a rather quaint notion to us nowadays but there we are.

It does not imply it is the act of sex that is itself sinful, or anything like that. After all, God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and fill the Earth. So sex was divinely ordained before the Fall.