PDA

View Full Version : Original sin and responsibility (sf PC hurts Aborigines)



Kevin Bonham
18-07-2014, 10:45 PM
Thought I'd take this one over here as it's getting off-topic for the parent thread.

The following are the pertinent prior comments from the thread "How politically correct racist attitudes patronizing attitudes hurt ordinary Aborigines":


No one alive today is to blame for bad things that happened well before they were born, and no one alive is a victim of same.


But it's a strange argument for Capablanca-Fan to make. There are many examples given in the Old Testament where people are the victim of God's punishment because of the actions of their ancestors (eg, the plagues imposed on Egypt). And there is also the concept of 'original sin', where people today are the 'victims' of bad things done by Adam and Eve.


Original sin is concerned with answerability to God for one particular sin from the first man, not to keep harping on about crimes for generation after generation. When it comes to human-administered justice, the principle comes from Ezekiel 18:20

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

I'd ask here why does "answerability to God" mean anything different to "blame"? Furthermore how does it make any sense to argue that someone is answerable to God for something that they did not actually do, especially when this is espoused by someone who has an extreme disbelief of any notion of inherited guilt when applied to issues of racial disposession?

If, as Capablanca-Fan asserts, no-one alive is a victim of the sins of the past, then how does that square with the idea that humans generally are deficient in some way resulting from the supposed actions of Adam and Eve?

I think Patrick has made good points about inconsistency here. I also think that Capablanca-Fan's position is impervious to evidence of inconsistency: since he maintains that Scripture trumps all evidence to the contrary, he just keeps on flogging the scriptural line and his political views without caring how many inconsistencies are proven by others. After all if his position is proven inconsistent, then his scriptural axiom defines that that can't be so, so he ignores it.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2014, 04:14 AM
As I have pointed out before, the Creator has rights over His creatures. This includes the right to put them to death, since their lives belong to Him in the first place. This does not entail that mere creatures have the right to take the lives of other creatures. Applied to the sin of Adam, the idea of original sin should not be stolen and used as an excuse for collective punishment of people today for alleged sins of their ancestors. Even KB agreed with that part of it. PB was just bringing one more of his diversionary distraction tactics.

Rincewind
19-07-2014, 10:43 AM
So original sin makes sense because god is capricious?

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2014, 11:29 AM
Applied to the sin of Adam, the idea of original sin should not be stolen and used as an excuse for collective punishment of people today for alleged sins of their ancestors. Even KB agreed with that part of it.

KB agreed with that part of it because KB considers the idea of original sin to be contemptible hogwash and any God-concept relying on it to be self-evidently unworthy of worship even if it existed. (It would be more honourable to resist such a God and go to Hell even if one could be sure such a God existed, which would in any case be impossible).

KB can easily take a position on the two issues consistently. People alive today are not responsible for the alleged sins of Adam and Eve (even if they existed) and likewise they are not responsible for the thuggery of people who lived and died before their lifetimes. But if KB believed that imposing punishment on all of humanity for the alleged sins of two people made sense, he might just as easily believe the same concerning collective guilt for the dispossession of "first peoples". Especially as the notion of responsibility for actions makes sense even without considering the question of who is fit to deliver punishment.

Furthermore, re "the Creator has rights over His creatures.", while that would apply in the sense that an all-powerful deity could do what it liked and nothing could stop it, it would not apply without limit in the sense of any proposed moral right. Original sin is a concept bereft of moral justice unless the concept of moral justice is that whatever God wants is good no matter how much it is otherwise self-evidently absurd and unjust.

As for the Ezekiel section this just highlights the double standards of a scriptural position.

Gnostic Bishop
29-08-2014, 09:24 PM
G'day gents.

What Original Sin are we talking about.

Becoming as God?

Eve was right to ignore God's command to stay as bright as a brick and never reproduce.

For any parent to refuse their child an education is abuse to that child.

God is appropriately named here for what he attempted to do to mankind.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

Regards
DL

antichrist
30-08-2014, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
Applied to the sin of Adam, the idea of original sin should not be stolen and used as an excuse for collective punishment of people today for alleged sins of their ancestors. Even KB agreed with that part of it.

AC: But was not your Jesus crucified and the words in your Holy Bible state: The Jews screamed let his blood be upon us and upon our children and our children's children for twenty generations.

They are not my words don't blame me.