• 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?