• 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
      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?