this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
857 points (96.5% liked)

Atheism

1537 readers
2 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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?