Are all white people guilty of slavery?

[jb41908]

Are all white people guilty of slavery because some white people owned slaves? Is collective guilt just, wise, or merciful?

How is it different than the notion that all people who ever exist being guilty of original sin?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 40 by bluethread]

It wouldn't be part of your expounding on slavery at all. Come on, this part of the conversation has long moved on to the problem of evil re: humanity being punished for Adam's sin.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 40 by bluethread]

It wouldn't be part of your expounding on slavery at all. Come on, this part of the conversation has long moved on to the problem of evil re: humanity being punished for Adam's sin.

No, you are framing it as humanity being punished for Adam's sin. Consequences are not necessarily punishment. The Adam story speaks to the ability of humans to imagine alternate realities. Every reality comes with it's own positive and negative consequences. Since you are a subjectivist, wouldn't you say that whether something is positive or negative is determined by the individual? Therefore, wouldn't seeing an inherited trait as punishment be the subjective judgement of the individual and thus his own fault?

[Bust Nak]

No, you are framing it as humanity being punished for Adam's sin.

Whether I have a case or not, the point was the context has long since changed from slavery to Adam's sin when I "framed" it that way back on page 3.

Consequences are not necessarily punishment.

It is not necessarily so, but in this case it is, given that it is artifical and purposeful. We need not inherit sin, if not for God's decision to make it so.

The Adam story speaks to the ability of humans to imagine alternate realities. Every reality comes with it's own positive and negative consequences.
Since you are a subjectivist, wouldn't you say that whether something is positive or negative is determined by the individual?

Yes, I would say that, and I have determined that it is negative.

Therefore, wouldn't seeing an inherited trait as punishment be the subjective judgement of the individual and thus his own fault?

Right, but that doesn't change the narrative that God's was responsible (regardless of whether said responsibility should be considered a fault or not) for us being born with a sinful nature.

[bluethread]

No, you are framing it as humanity being punished for Adam's sin.

Whether I have a case or not, the point was the context has long since changed from slavery to Adam's sin when I "framed" it that way back on page 3.

Consequences are not necessarily punishment.

It is not necessarily so, but in this case it is, given that it is artifical and purposeful. We need not inherit sin, if not for God's decision to make it so.

I understand that we are talking about inherited traits in general and not necessarily a propensity to slavery. Benevolence can also be said to be artificial and purposeful. Also, "sin" refers to varying from a standard. This is the nature of being able to envision alternatives, it permits one to deviate from a standard. If we inherit that ability, we also inherit that propensity. It is not punishment, it is consequence.

The Adam story speaks to the ability of humans to imagine alternate realities. Every reality comes with it's own positive and negative consequences.
Since you are a subjectivist, wouldn't you say that whether something is positive or negative is determined by the individual?

Yes, I would say that, and I have determined that it is negative.

Therefore, wouldn't seeing an inherited trait as punishment be the subjective judgement of the individual and thus his own fault?

Right, but that doesn't change the narrative that God's was responsible (regardless of whether said responsibility should be considered a fault or not) for us being born with a sinful nature.[/quote]

However, you are equating responsibility with fault when you say that "we are punished due to no fault of our own". In fact, you are also adding moral judgement by using the word "punished". If a deity is responsible for our present state, what then? It doesn't change the fact that we are in this present state.

[Bust Nak]

I understand that we are talking about inherited traits in general and not necessarily a propensity to slavery. Benevolence can also be said to be artificial and purposeful. Also, "sin" refers to varying from a standard. This is the nature of being able to envision alternatives, it permits one to deviate from a standard. If we inherit that ability, we also inherit that propensity. It is not punishment, it is consequence.

Can you agree that consequences can be punishments, if a) it is an artificial consequence, and b) negative? If you can agree to that then, can you agree that inheriting "sinful nature" or whatever the correct term is, is an artificial consequence, and is only so because God with foresight, designed it that way? And if one accepts the teachings of immaculate conception, would go further and say that sinful parents can and have indeed produced an original-sin-free offspring.

If you can agree with these two points, I can concentrate on convincing you that inhering sin is, subjectively, a negative.

However, you are equating responsibility with fault when you say that "we are punished due to no fault of our own". In fact, you are also adding moral judgement by using the word "punished". If a deity is responsible for our present state, what then? It doesn't change the fact that we are in this present state.

It always go back to the problem of evil.

[imhereforyou]

Are all white people guilty of slavery because some white people owned slaves? Is collective guilt just, wise, or merciful?

How is it different than the notion that all people who ever exist being guilty of original sin?

Maybe in a general sense it's very similar. Specifics I'm not sure about. But the concept of thought you pose is a rather good one.
I've recently decided the brainwashed concept of original sin isn't worthy of any deity and thus, I don't subscribe to it in the popularly taught method.
Individual sin is another animal altogether. But all encompassing original sin is a silly concept I'd expect/hope any thinking person would discount.

[bluethread]

Can you agree that consequences can be punishments, if a) it is an artificial consequence, and b) negative? If you can agree to that then, can you agree that inheriting "sinful nature" or whatever the correct term is, is an artificial consequence, and is only so because God with foresight, designed it that way? And if one accepts the teachings of immaculate conception, would go further and say that sinful parents can and have indeed produced an original-sin-free offspring.

If you can agree with these two points, I can concentrate on convincing you that inhering sin is, subjectively, a negative.

There is a difference between can and are. Are you making the argument that there are cases where consequences with those two characteristics are not punishment, or that consequences with those two characteristics are always punishment.

Presuming you mean the latter and that is true, which I have not stipulated yet, what makes dying an artificial consequence of the ability to envision alternate realities? If I recognized that I can do harmful things, how does it not follow that I will eventually do harmful things? Regarding the immaculate conception, I do not hold that doctrine. However, I also do not hold to the doctrine of inherited sin either. I hold to the doctrine of inherited propensity to seek out alternatives and some of those alternatives are harmful leading to death. That is indeed harmful, but it is not artificial at all.

However, you are equating responsibility with fault when you say that "we are punished due to no fault of our own". In fact, you are also adding moral judgement by using the word "punished". If a deity is responsible for our present state, what then? It doesn't change the fact that we are in this present state.

It always go back to the problem of evil.

Anglo-saxon evil, or the biblical concept translated as "evil" in the KJV? One is an ill defined essense and the other is a well defined category of activity.

[Bust Nak]

There is a difference between can and are. Are you making the argument that there are cases where consequences with those two characteristics are not punishment, or that consequences with those two characteristics are always punishment.

Always.

Presuming you mean the latter and that is true, which I have not stipulated yet, what makes dying an artificial consequence of the ability to envision alternate realities?

Because we could instead be immortals.

If I recognized that I can do harmful things, how does it not follow that I will eventually do harmful things?

That alone wouldn't be enough.

Regarding the immaculate conception, I do not hold that doctrine. However, I also do not hold to the doctrine of inherited sin either. I hold to the doctrine of inherited propensity to seek out alternatives and some of those alternatives are harmful leading to death. That is indeed harmful, but it is not artificial at all.

Why would there be alternatives that are harmful, if it wasn't for God wanting there to be alternatives that are harmful? You don't seem to be taking God being the creator of the universe claim in the Bible very seriously.

Anglo-saxon evil, or the biblical concept translated as "evil" in the KJV? One is an ill defined essense and the other is a well defined category of activity.

Either, the problem of evil doesn't care what definition you use, as long as it is consistent. The argument boils down to:

1) if God then !E.
2) E
3) Therefore !God.

Subsitute whatever you like for E as long as it refers to the same thing in both premises. Side note, it also doesn't matter what the cause of E is, so whose fault it is that E exist, is rendered irrelevant.

[Elijah John]

The slavery example is an example of collective guilt.

Original Sin is a Christian doctrine of collective guilt holding all mankind guilty of Adam’s original Sin in the Garden.

How is that just, fair, or wise?

I don't know if Christians have to believe the doctrine of original sin. We are guilty of our own sins.

RESPONSE: Catholics do. And if we didn't have that belief, the Immaculate Conception infallible teaching has to be seriously modified or deleted.

Incidentally, I assume you know that the Catholic Church's teaching is that if infants die before baptism they have to spend eternity in hell because they have the guilt of Adam's sin. It is sometimes called the "stain of Original Sin."

The RCC no longer teaches this regarding unbaptized babies.

[bluethread]

what makes dying an artificial consequence of the ability to envision alternate realities?

Because we could instead be immortals.

If I recognized that I can do harmful things, how does it not follow that I will eventually do harmful things?

That alone wouldn't be enough.

So, are you arguing that we could be creatures that are capable of learning how to do harmful things, but do no harm? Possible, but not reasonable.

Regarding the immaculate conception, I do not hold that doctrine. However, I also do not hold to the doctrine of inherited sin either. I hold to the doctrine of inherited propensity to seek out alternatives and some of those alternatives are harmful leading to death. That is indeed harmful, but it is not artificial at all.

Why would there be alternatives that are harmful, if it wasn't for God wanting there to be alternatives that are harmful? You don't seem to be taking God being the creator of the universe claim in the Bible very seriously.

On the contrary, I do. The reason that there are harmful things is because of side effects. Things used for a good purpose can become harmful when used for an alternative purpose. As long as one does not have the ability to invision alternatives, one is not subject to that harm.

Anglo-saxon evil, or the biblical concept translated as "evil" in the KJV? One is an ill defined essense and the other is a well defined category of activity.

Either, the problem of evil doesn't care what definition you use, as long as it is consistent. The argument boils down to:

1) if God then !E.
2) E
3) Therefore !God.

Subsitute whatever you like for E as long as it refers to the same thing in both premises. Side note, it also doesn't matter what the cause of E is, so whose fault it is that E exist, is rendered irrelevant.

1) if Elohiem, then tov(good)
2) tov(good)
3) Therefore, Elohiem

Caveat

1) if ra' (evil) = not tov
2) in GenEden no ra'
3) Therefore, in GenEden only tov.
4) after GenEden ra'
5) Therefore, after GenEden tov and ra'.

Tov is not dependent on ra'. Ra' is derived from tov and derivation requires the ability to envision alternative realities.