Hi Iotharson -
I’ll tell you something; the Brits on this site have a reputation for starting provocative thread on American politics - something I have eventually come to feel very bad about. Get your own back sometime - start a provocative thread in ‘Controversial’ about the British. We deserve it!!! 
‘The infamous rosbifs’ springs to mind.
I think I am inherently discordant, the superposition of two mutually exclusive natures. I am an evil creature born in the darkness of the Deep. Simultaneously, I am a good creature made clean by the creative Word of God. There is nothing good about evil, nothing evil about good, yet here I am, a bizarre being who is both good and evil. Plot good on the x axis and evil on the y axis. My every thought, word and deed will lie somewhere on this plane. If pure evil, I would never want to repent (but I often do.) If pure good, I would never need to repent (but I often do.)
Read a bit about epigenetics. I think that may be a part of the answer about a sin nature.
Epigenetics? Ok, I’ll take a look.
I’ll give a synopsis and some examples of what I mean In a bit when I get to my computer.
European? No way Pedro! The day they have a European cricket team I might start entertaining the idea of considering myself vaguely European. Until then, I’m as English as warm beer and strawberry jam .
God Save the Queen!
Johnny
And our Queen is a German!
When I said I’d get to my computer it sounds like its at my office or something, but what I meant was getting up from sitting in front of the fire with my doggies on the iPad. 
So basically the standard model of genetics says something like “you get what you get from your parents and thats what you’re stuck with”. So if your parents had heart disease, you get heart disease, or you have a higher chance of getting heart disease. And thats your cards in life. Much of what is the standard model was developed before the genome was sequenced. What they found that should have changed all their minds but didn’t was that there just weren’t enough genes in the human genome to account for the human. It was believed red hair=1 gene, tall another, etc etc. What they found was instead of in the millions of genes there were only in the 100’s of thousands. 
Now epigenetics is epi+genetics, epi is above or around or to the outside of. And what it is is that your bodies characteristics and traits are effected by the environment. So our genes express based on what type of environment you live in. That means biological, what kind of nutrients, what kind of stress levels. How you live does truly change your genetic expression. I’ll give a couple examples and then get to the point.
This one is on meditation and gene expression
news.wisc.edu/22370
Here is a commentary on a new study that shows mice pass along learned “memories” to their offspring. It also gives a bit of discussion on both sides of the debate. The actual study is linked in this.
phenomena.nationalgeographic.com … igenetics/
These aren’t isolated incidences either. There is a growing body of research supporting the epigenetic model.
So incase the connection isn’t clear to what I’m getting at. Learned behaviors are passed down generation to generation. Examples: Violence creates major changes in your hormones, spiking adrenaline then cortisol, changing the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain, etc. etc. Power will do the same, it creates a euphoria of dopamine and seratonin. These are two of the greatest parts of the “sinful nature”, violence and power seeking IMO. Those two “activities” change your bodies hormonal levels and if continued will change your genetic expression towards that mode of operation. You will then pass down that mode of operation to your kids.
But the good news for all my Arminian (leaning) friends , its not fatalistic. It can change. You can change the expression again. Like through meditation in the first article.
There are some that feel our DNA will be “changed in a moment (atomos), in a twinkling of an eye.” DNA = divine nature activated. The “epi” in this case is not from the outside environment but is from the seed hidden within all men. But this force will radically change our DNA from corruptibility, to incorruptibility. Whether its a change in the expression, or addition of helixes, or something totally new. I don’t know, but its interesting to think about 
That’s really interesting Jeremy I had heard a little bit about this debate but it was some ten years ago now. This does suggest that determinism within a model of scientific materialism is breaking down as a ‘total explanation’. I find this intriguing and encouraging too
I’ve just found an accessible article about mirror neurons and Girard’s theory of desire. believe it or not it’s by that geezer Richard Beck; and as far as I can see it complements Jeremy’s post rather than competes with it. Here it is -
Is Richard Beck a convinced universalist or does he just hope all people will be saved?
He once wrote me he agrees with me that the concept of an inherited sinful nature (as a curse) cannot be found in the text of Genesis and that the Eastern orthodox Church got it right.
Iotharson -
I don’t read Richard’s blog very often but I know that he calls himself both convinced and hopeful from a post he once made here - ‘I argue, strongly, that UR is the only view that makes Christianity morally, biblically and theologically coherent and that all the other options- e.g., ECT, conditionalism, and annihilationism- make Christianity morally, biblically and theologically incoherent (if not monstrous). I’ll argue that deep into the night and into the next day’ (Universalism and Doubt: Being Both Hopeful and Dogmatic forum post).
Yes it makes sense he agrees with you about the Eastern interpretation of Genesis - IMHO you are spot on there. This interpretation of Genesis does not necessarily lead to Universalism - but I think it makes universalism ‘easier’
Blessings
The perfidious Englishman
The prefix ‘epi’ triggered a memory (interesting process in itself, actually) of early days in philosophy class, listening to lectures on mind-brain identity, dualism etc., and centering on mind as ‘epiphenomenon’.
Online dictionary defs:
-A mental state or process that is an incidental byproduct of physiological events in the brain or nervous system
-A secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process
-A mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity
-A secondary phenomenon that is a by-product of another phenomenon
All meant to defend the idea of ‘mind’ being a by-product of the ‘meat’ that is the brain.
And by not too much of a stretch, I suppose we could call human behavior an epiphenomenon of the ‘meat’ that is the body entire.
If we go that far, the question of what constitutes practical knowledge, i.e., moral behavior really needs re-defining for the religious thinker.
The older, ‘static’ model of genetics is such a part of our world-view (and is part of that view, right down to jokes on tv, and pleas in the courtroom etc.) that overturning it will be a real challenge, especially since it has yielded fruit in terms of medicine and disease. Of course it need not be overturned, just ‘fleshed out’ and given a greater role.
Very interesting. I’ve read that Jews have long considered the call of Abraham as the beginning of undoing the sin of Adam. I’ll get to that elsewhere.
Question: Does the theory of epigenetics bind us necessarily to the reality of an actual human pair as parents of the entire race?
No. Because of our ability to choose, we can choose not to do some wrong thing to which we are genetically pre-disposed, on at least one particular occasion. Therefore we have the ability to so choose on other occasions. And as we see the benefits, and practise avoiding that wrong, we become gradually changed in such a way that it becomes easier on future occsions.
In a previous post, I mentioned that studies in alcoholism have definitely indicated a genetic link. Does that mean that a person, who, because of his genetics is doomed to a life of alcholism? No. He can choose to resist the forces which dispose him in that direction. And the more times he chooses to resist, the easier it will become. I have known several alcholics who have ceased to be such—one (who, I believe has the “alcoholic gene”) claims to have been delivered from alcoholism by Christ (and I believe him!). Others seem to have ceased being alcoholics through their own ability to choose.
However, George MacDonald believed that God’s help is necessary to overcome evil. In any case, God’s grace (His enablement) is what makes success much easier. And that is the very reason Christ died—that we might be delivered from sin.
I agree with that, Paidion.
I don’t think the sinful ‘nature’ is in the genes; I could be wrong about that, but I don’t see how.
We are more than genes and conditioning; and ‘Spirit’ cannot be an epiphenomenon arising out of the stuff our bodies are made of. The biblical commandments are aimed directly at the heart, the will - spiritual endowments, in the image of God.
The genetic angle is fascinating, and certainly a person does inherit much of his nature (even if separated at birth) from his parents. Our present bodies are corruptible and we must put on incorruptible bodies before we can enter the Kingdom. That said, I suspect the bondage to sin is also or even primarily on the level of a spiritual bondage. We have to be set free because we were born into slavery (so to speak), and Jesus did that for us. That’s how I read it, though I’ve surely been known to be wrong. 
If the whole of creation groans in bondage I guess that must mean the physical and the material. regarding ‘epigenetics’ - I know that the prefix ‘epi’ means ‘above’ and it can mean slightly different things in different word contexts. In ‘epiphenomena’ it means that things we see as primary - the phenomena that we perceive as facts - are actually derivative/secondary. For example, Marxist historians who are determinists look on the acts of ‘great people’ in history - be it Caesar, Napoleon, or Abraham Lincoln or whoever - as secondary. According to Marxist determinists they only act out the script being written by changes in the base economic structure of society. Likewise epiphenomena used by those philosophers who deny the existence of independent Mind means those states that we think are mental and acts we think are done in freedom are really simply by products of the body. However, in epigenetics - as Jeremy has described it - there seems to be the suggestion that the mind (and our choices)can act back upon genetic factors and actually modify these; so, unless I’m wrong, the prefix ‘epi’ seems to be used here to suggest there are actually things above the genetic and genetics are not always primary. Is that right Jeremy?
“Epi” in a philosophical sense often means ‘secondary’ following’ ‘derived from’ - as in certain theories of mind.
-Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events. Behavior is caused by muscles that contract upon receiving neural impulses, and neural impulses are generated by input from other neurons or from sense organs. On the epiphenomenalist view, mental events play no causal role in this process. Huxley (1874), who held the view, compared mental events to a steam whistle that contributes nothing to the work of a locomotive. James (1879), who rejected the view, characterized epiphenomenalists’ mental events as not affecting the brain activity that produces them “any more than a shadow reacts upon the steps of the traveller whom it accompanies”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This is good solid materialistic theory, which I happen to disagree with. I don’t know if what Jeremy presented is strictly materialistic or not, I’m hoping he can add more to this interesting topic.
What I’m getting at: is ‘Spirit’ derived from matter? Is there not a dualism that is fundamental - God is a Spirit, and has no body, so perhaps we have a spirit and a body?
Absolutely Dick! That’s the point. And btw it is VERY Girardian. I believe this is a physiological mechanism associated with mimesis.
Dave this is absolutely the opposite of materialistic. I’m a vitalist, well not a card carrying member or anything like that so I pretty much am anti materialism and specifically materiistic reductionist philosophy that dominates the scientific world.
Also Dave. In this case epi is above in its meaning. Not stemming from.
Thanks Jeremy. As to ‘vitalist’ - in what sense?
That life is spiritual at the core. And the physical emanates from it. The opposite of what is the standard thought in science. That the spiritual is just a phenomenon of the coping mechanism of evolution or something to that effect.