• qyron@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The notion of being guilty by proxy is mind boggling but it would be/is a good tool to control people through fear, which is essentially most creeds business.

      • dlrht@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The notion is mind boggling because being guilty by proxy is not how it works anyway. If you could find a 100% objectively guiltless man I’d totally concede that guilt by proxy is how it works, but let’s face it, literally everyone on this earth is not perfect or blameless. You don’t need a proxy to be guilty, everyone already is, its not hard to see when you look at the people in the world

        If every man after Adam is guilty by proxy, Jesus would’ve been guilty as well as soon as he was born. But Christianity clearly posits the opposite of that

        • qyron@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s not take that route.

          The guilty by proxy argument predicates that every human being, at the moment of conception, is already guilty of an act onto which said human had no participation on. That is being guilty by simply existing.

          We’re are not getting into the argument of nobody being exempt of fault, either by action or lack of it.

          The “loop hole” used to exempt JC Sandals of the original son was having him being conceived with no human intervention, therefore, sinless. After all, it is argued he was born of a virgin woman, willed into existence into flesh yet not conceived as any other.

          • dlrht@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You make a really excellent point, and I think I retract what I have posited. But I think nobody being exempt of fault is quite true, no?

            • qyron@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The easiest reply would be “it dependends”.

              But…

              What constitutes a fault? Are we to consider fault only actions or lack thereof taken counciously or any outcome that negatively influences another or anything, even if such outcome arises from an unpredicted(able) steming from an action taken with a good purpose?

    • dlrht@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t have exact answers for this, but if you look at it as if Adam was indicative of all of mankind (which he was), you can see it less like people are condemned when theyre born but more like all people are inherently broken/flawed/sinners. Original sin was just the first example of it. If there were people out in the world who were objectively flawless and sinless I’d take a totally different stance, but mankind being broken and evil is just pretty consistent with history and with the bible

      Christianity doesn’t exactly say it’s a grievous error to be born and that you’re condemned for it, it more says that you’re inherently broken but you can still be redeemed

        • dlrht@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We can agree to disagree then. You didn’t really explain anything either.

          We’re an inherently selfish species from a biological perspective, people aren’t just fundamentally altruistic. If evolution shaped our morals to encourage us to be nice to each other to benefit the whole species, why is it still such a struggle for people to be selfless?

          I find it very hard for you to convince me that as a species we are neutral when the very people we put into power and govern over us are narcissists and power hungry people who have little care about every individuals lives that they govern over and are obsessed with self gain.

          On an individual level, being altruistic/good natured/selfless is something that has to be fostered and you have to be intentional about. Growing up, we’re taught lessons, in school and in media, etc., on how to be good/how to treat others. We’re taught to do good things and don’t do bad things. Why? Because our nature is to do bad things

          If you have to be intentional about being good and not being bad, then that means your default state is being bad. It’s easy to be selfish and only do things that you want and only care about yourself, because that’s our nature as a species.

          I don’t agree that we just “are” and that we just “exist”, it just sounds like someone that doesn’t want to face the truth that mankind is not a perfect species. Vague statements like “we can only be as evil as we are good” doesn’t actually mean anything. You just stated a bunch of facts like “death gives life meaning” and “shadow defines light”. Sure. I agree. So what? Nothing that you said really clarified why humans aren’t inherently bad in your eyes. You just said a bunch of generic statements that not even Christians disagree with as if I’m supposed to understand why your position makes sense now

        • dlrht@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The contrast though is that you don’t “earn” heaven either. Nothing makes a Christian and a non Christian so inherently different from each other that one fundamentally deserves heaven and the other hell. It’s saved by faith, not by works