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?

[Kenisaw]

Are all white people guilty of slavery because some white people owned slaves?

The only people guilty of slavery are those that engage in the act of slavery or aiding and abetting it. As it relates to the Civil War, none of us are guilty of that.

It was possible to make the claim that whites had an economic advantage at one time even after slavery ended, but the statute of limitations on that idea is gone now in my opinion. With free education through high school available for all, there is no reason that any person cannot move up in the world. Yes, I know some have a harder path than others, but that doesn't mean it can't be achieved.

Is collective guilt just, wise, or merciful?

It's political, pure and simple.

How is it different than the notion that all people who ever exist being guilty of original sin?

Good question. It's basically the same thing as original sin.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by onewithhim]

All humans are AFFECTED by what Adam did because we all came from him; he is our ancestor; his DNA would be passed down to us.

I can understand believing this in a theological sense, but when you bring DNA into the mix, this is when I have to call a halt to it.
Please provide DNA/genetic evidence of Adam, that we as humans have inherited what can be identified as being from Adam.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 12 by onewithhim]

All humans are AFFECTED by what Adam did because we all came from him; he is our ancestor; his DNA would be passed down to us.

I can understand believing this in a theological sense, but when you bring DNA into the mix, this is when I have to call a halt to it.
Please provide DNA/genetic evidence of Adam, that we as humans have inherited what can be identified as being from Adam.

Since this is the P&R thread and not the S&R thread such a justification is not required, However, no specific evidence exists of a single common ancestor. Therefore, the Adam theory is no more or less plausable than any other common ancestory theory, based on DNA. Also, the Adam theory is not a scientific explanation, but a shared mythology that is used to establish certain behavior policies. Therefore, it is integral to human politics.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by bluethread]

Since this is the P&R thread and not the S&R thread such a justification is not required,

Hmm...okay.

However, no specific evidence exists of a single common ancestor.

Apart from Y Chromosomal Adam.

Therefore, the Adam theory is no more or less plausable than any other common ancestory theory, based on DNA.

If by "Adam theory" you mean "all humans are descended from a single male human, who was the first human male", then no, this is incorrect.

Also, the Adam theory is not a scientific explanation, but a shared mythology that is used to establish certain behavior policies.

If it is not scientific, then those who promote it ought not to be saying "his DNA would be passed down to us."
DNA is part and parcel of science.

[bluethread]

However, no specific evidence exists of a single common ancestor.

Apart from Y Chromosomal Adam.

We have no specimen or fossilized evidence of Y Chromosomal Adam. That is a shared hypthesis, based on acceptance of shared principles.

Therefore, the Adam theory is no more or less plausable than any other common ancestory theory, based on DNA.

If by "Adam theory" you mean "all humans are descended from a single male human, who was the first human male", then no, this is incorrect.

How so, how does DNA differentiate between different common ancestory theories?

Also, the Adam theory is not a scientific explanation, but a shared mythology that is used to establish certain behavior policies.

If it is not scientific, then those who promote it ought not to be saying "his DNA would be passed down to us."
DNA is part and parcel of science.

I can see how that would be violation of the orthodoxy of scientific humanism. However, the assumption of the thread is a single common ancestor. If that is not the case the argument is with the OP. Onewithhim did not appear to be arguing for the existance of a single common ancestor based on DNA, but was using the principle of DNA theory to explain inherited tendencies. His point appeared to be that though a tendency to accept slavery may be inheritied, the guilt associated with specific acts of slavery is not. That point is bolstered by the fact that all hereditary lines have ancestors who practiced slavery. So, even if there were no single common ancestor, it could be argued that a tendency to accept slavery is indeed inherent to human nature.

[Bust Nak]

Incidentally, I assume you know that the Catholic Church's teaching is that if infants die before baptism they have to spend eternity in hell because they have the guilt of Adam's sin. It is sometimes called the "stain of Original Sin."

Babies and folks who never heard of God or Jesus: straight to Hell.

Pretty sure that's not official teaching.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

[Bust Nak]

All humans are AFFECTED by what Adam did because we all came from him; he is our ancestor; his DNA would be passed down to us. In that way we cannot escape the judgment he received for turning his back on God and demanding to run his own life without God's rules. When he lost his perfection and was slated to die, all of his children would be imperfect as well, and would eventually die. That's the way human geneology works.

You say "would" but why would it be the case that sin / imperfection is inheritable? That is the way human geneology works because God designed it that way, but this need not be the case. There is no reason why humans are AFFECTED by what Adam did other than because God wanted it to affect us. In this sense we are being PUNISHED for a crime we did not commit.

[bluethread]

You say "would" but why would it be the case that sin / imperfection is inheritable? That is the way human geneology works because God designed it that way, but this need not be the case. There is no reason why humans are AFFECTED by what Adam did other than because God wanted it to affect us. In this sense we are being PUNISHED for a crime we did not commit.

So, you are falling back on the fatalistic argument that inheriting traits is equal to being "punished". Are black people being "punished" in having inherited a trait for more melanin, or by living in a societies that favor those with less melanin? Are left handed people being "punished" in having inherited a left handed tendency, or by living in a society that favors right handed tendencies? Yeshua addressed this question when (Jn. 9:2) "(h)is disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?� " The answer is (vs. 3b) "this happened so that the works of Adonai might be displayed in him." We have choices. We can choose to see ourselves as victims or we can choose to see our struggles as opportunities. We could just as easily say that we have all been "punished", because we were not born with the ability to fly.

[Bust Nak]

So, you are falling back on the fatalistic argument that inheriting traits is equal to being "punished". Are black people being "punished" in having inherited a trait for more melanin, or by living in a societies that favor those with less melanin?

Assuming deliberate and conscious decisions by some overlord that resulted with said black people being disadvantaged, yes.

Are left handed people being "punished" in having inherited a left handed tendency, or by living in a society that favors right handed tendencies?

Assuming deliberate and conscious decisions by some overlord that resulted with lefties being disadvantaged, yes.

As for fatalistic, sure, we don't choose our skin color nor our handedness.

Yeshua addressed this question when (Jn. 9:2) "(h)is disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?� " The answer is (vs. 3b) "this happened so that the works of Adonai might be displayed in him."

Doesn't this support my case? The man is blind not because of his sins, but because God wanted it that way.

We have choices. We can choose to see ourselves as victims or we can choose to see our struggles as opportunities. We could just as easily say that we have all been "punished", because we were not born with the ability to fly.

We could say that, the question is, why don't you say it. We could be born with the ability to fly, but we can't fly through no fault of our own.

[DPMartin]

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?

of course we are ask anyone who is not white, and wants to be perceived as a victim.