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]

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.

Why not, Jesus is said to be one such creature. Are you willing to say the narrative of Jesus is not reasonable?

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.

Not when one is careful with planning. Now I get to accuse you of not taking omnipotence very seriously. A "thing" where all 100% of its potential uses are positive, does not contain an internal contradiction, correct? If it isn't internal contradictory then it is possible and hence within the ability of an omnipotent God. An omnipotent God does not have to compromise with creating a good thing that could be abused in harmful ways.

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

Wait a minute, is this offered as a deductive proof? I have to ask because it's a classic fallacy.

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.

Here you are affirming the existence of ra', i.e premise 2 of the probelm of evil. You were suppsed to attack the premises, not affirm it.

I guess that means you are planning on attacking premise 1) If Elohiem then !ra'. Let me break that down some more.

1.1) Elohiem wishes !ra'.
1.2) Elohiem can achieve !ra'.
1.3) If with both the will and ability to achieve X then X is achieved.
1.4) Therefore if Elohiem then !ra'.

[bluethread]

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.

Why not, Jesus is said to be one such creature. Are you willing to say the narrative of Jesus is not reasonable?

He is the ideal, which is by definition the exception, not the rule.

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 envision alternatives, one is not subject to that harm.

Not when one is careful with planning. Now I get to accuse you of not taking omnipotence very seriously. A "thing" where all 100% of its potential uses are positive, does not contain an internal contradiction, correct? If it isn't internal contradictory then it is possible and hence within the ability of an omnipotent God. An omnipotent God does not have to compromise with creating a good thing that could be abused in harmful ways.

Omnipotence does not equal omni-benevolence. Sure, Adonai has the power of creating things without the possibility of negative side effects. That is what is behind the concept of GenEden. Then, was introduced the concept of creativity with the possibility of negative side effects, i.e. the tree of the knowledge of tov and ra'.

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

Wait a minute, is this offered as a deductive proof? I have to ask because it's a classic fallacy.

You are the one who presented the formula and told me to just plug anything for E. I plugged in tov.

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.

Here you are affirming the existence of ra', i.e premise 2 of the probelm of evil. You were suppsed to attack the premises, not affirm it.

The existance of ra' is not a given, in the GenEden experience. Ra' is introduced as a consquence of envisioning alternatives with negative consequence.

I guess that means you are planning on attacking premise 1) If Elohiem then !ra'. Let me break that down some more.

1.1) Elohiem wishes !ra'.
1.2) Elohiem can achieve !ra'.
1.3) If with both the will and ability to achieve X then X is achieved.
1.4) Therefore if Elohiem then !ra'.

However, ra' is not a risk to Elohiem. It is a risk to man. As the Scriptures say,“The man has now become like one of us, knowing tov and ra'. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.� Unlike Elohiem, man, as he was in GenEden, was ill equiped for ra'. In fact, the rest of the Scriptures speak to man's struggles with ra', even with the hedges that Adonai placed around him. As pointed out earlier, it is only the ideal man, Yeshua, who was capable of seeing ra' for what it is and resisting the temptation to embrace it with limited human abilities.

If I may, could you remind me of how this relates to inherent guilt, which is the point of the OP. If I recall, I stated that it is not the acts and related responsibility that are inherited, but the propensity. If, as you say, a human is able to control that propensity, then one can avoid harm. However, only Yeshua has, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to be responsible for those propensities and our own actions, regardless of how they came to be. Thus, the striving for the ideal.

[Bust Nak]

He is the ideal, which is by definition the exception, not the rule.

But it's only the exception, not the rule because God made it that way.

Omnipotence does not equal omni-benevolence. Sure, Adonai has the power of creating things without the possibility of negative side effects. That is what is behind the concept of GenEden. Then, was introduced the concept of creativity with the possibility of negative side effects, i.e. the tree of the knowledge of tov and ra'.

So the concept of the GenEden is to have things without the possibility of negative side effects, yet it turned out that things DO have the possibility of negative side effects. Why isn't that immediately ringing alarm bells that there is a logical problem?

More to the point, why is Elohiem less than omni-benevolence? Is it mere apathy or outright malice?

You are the one who presented the formula and told me to just plug anything for E. I plugged in tov.

In which case you seems to have missed the very important "!" in the formula. If it is unfamiliarr to you, it means logical negation - "not."

The existance of ra' is not a given, in the GenEden experience. Ra' is introduced as a consquence of envisioning alternatives with negative consequence.

Which is an affirmation that yes, Ra' does exist. Which in term affirm premise 2 of my rendition of the problem of evil.

However, ra' is not a risk to Elohiem. It is a risk to man. As the Scriptures say,“The man has now become like one of us, knowing tov and ra'. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.� Unlike Elohiem, man, as he was in GenEden, was ill equiped for ra'. In fact, the rest of the Scriptures speak to man's struggles with ra', even with the hedges that Adonai placed around him. As pointed out earlier, it is only the ideal man, Yeshua, who was capable of seeing ra' for what it is and resisting the temptation to embrace it with limited human abilities.

Are you saying Elohiem lacks the will to prevent 'ra?

If I may, could you remind me of how this relates to inherent guilt, which is the point of the OP. If I recall, I stated that it is not the acts and related responsibility that are inherited, but the propensity. If, as you say, a human is able to control that propensity, then one can avoid harm. However, only Yeshua has, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to be responsible for those propensities and our own actions, regardless of how they came to be. Thus, the striving for the ideal.

Why do we lack the ability to control that propensity, if not for Elohiem's desire for us to not have that ability?

[Falling Light 101]

.

ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE GUILTY OF WINNING THE WAR AGAINST THE DARKER RACES - This is true - IN THE EYES OF THE DARKER RACES WHO HAVE FOUGHT WARS AGAINST THE WHITE RACE and have lost.

The only goal of the darker races who have lost - is to create as much confusion as possible concerning who the winners and losers are and what ignorant could possibly fall in the middle.
This war is never ending -