Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Friday, October 06, 2006

Paul Manata: Babies are Born Guilty and We are all Slaves

It takes an evil sort to believe that newborn babies are sinful and deserving of death, but that's exactly what Paul Manata believes!

I believe babies sin immediately...


I've actually encountered many Christians who have expressed this kind of view. I have yet to meet an atheist or agnostic who has expressed anything so condemning of something so clearly innocent.

Later in the thread, Paul Manata confuses the concept of self-ownership with the concept of God owning everyone and everything in his poor attempt to justify original sin:

Adam was chosen by God. We suffer. We are not punished for his sin (as your wrongly asserted in your previous post). But we reap the consequences. I vote in, say, Bush. He invokes laws. My son may suffer for some. But he's not old enough to vote, you say! Doesn't matter. He was chosen for him. God chose for us. He made the best choice. His choice was infallible. His choice was perfect. Adam was the best representative we could have. He stood in for you. He was chosen to be your representative, just like, say, Duncan Hunter was chosen to be my son's representative, even though my son didn't vote.

...

I bet you'd gladly accept a million dollar inheritance from your grandfather, even though you did nothing to deserve the money, and you didn't choose him to be your grandfather. Same with Adam. We could have inherited the blessings and no one would have complained. But we inherit the sin, and we whine and moan. Thus it's us who are irrational (irrationality is a consequence of sin) and not my argument.


Emphasis Paul's. Now, can you spot the error?

In first scenario, God chooses Adam to represent everybody. Which means that before Adam represented everyone, it was God that represented them. Everyone belonged to God, and then by decree they belonged to Adam (even though they weren't born yet!). Adam fucked up, and then God makes every person suffer because they were owned or represented by Adam.

In the second scenario, a person accepts a million dollars that he didn't earn. But notice that it was him who chose to accept it, which implies self-representation. A person is free to choose whether he wants to accept the million dollars because he represents himself, but in the first scenario, a person was not free to choose because he was represented by God or Adam, and never himself.

Paul Manata wholly denies self-ownership as a foundation, and then tries to assign consequences to all of humanity for something that someone else did. All the while, every human on Earth is a permanent slave; enslaved to God, then to Adam, and suffering the consequences of their master's actions.

Paul then tries to make an analogy, but by using a comparative example where self-ownership is in play! It is easy to see how they don't equate. In the Adam scenario, we have no choice but to inherit the fruits of Adam's actions, whether they be sinful consequences or holy blessings; it's not our choice to make! Yet in the second analogy, the person is free to accept or reject the offerings of the older relative (in this case one million dollars). In the second analogy, it is his choice to make!

In the first situation there no choice for the individual; no self-directed action or responsibility is possible. But in the second situation, there is nothing but complete self-directed choice. In the second situation, the consequences can clearly be assigned to the person in question, for he was able to use his consent and choice through self-representation or self-ownership.

These two scenarios are simply not analogous, because the fundamental component, representation/ownership of action, is different between the two scenarios to a mutually exclusive degree.

I wonder if Paul Manata could ever provide a real-world analogy that would properly fit the original sin problem? I doubt that any Christian could.

Either you start with self-ownership or you don't. In the real world, you do, but in the Bible, you don't. Since self-ownership and other-ownership are mutually exclusive, no proper analogy is possible.

The concept of original sin is in an illogic and immoral category all it's own.

Post a Comment


22 Comments:

At 10/07/2006 9:55 AM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

"The concept of original sin is in an illogic and immoral category all it's own."

I beg to differ. Original sin is in the category of shameless exploitation. It is the most insidious part of the construct, "Dirty-dirty-dirty-must-go-to-church-to-get-clean-stand-sit-kneel-sing-give-money." It is insidious because there is no action for which the "sinner" is responsible; hey presto! You got sin!

Perversely, one of the by-products of this outrageous allegation is to diffuse the very outrage that one should feel at such a ridiculous accusation. "Self-direction is futile. You will be incinerated." It attempts to destroy free will by presupposing a consequence entirely beyond the reach of free will. Unfortunately it succeeds too often. "Baaaahhh!"

Even the Catholic Church is struggling with the baby issue. It just doesn't fit neatly into their bullshit scenario, so they are in the process of canceling Limbo. Strangely, this still doesn't seem to give many people a clue as to who is really in charge.

 
At 10/08/2006 1:58 AM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

Aaron said, "In the second scenario, a person accepts a million dollars that he didn't earn. But notice that it was him who chose to accept it, which implies self-representation. A person is free to choose whether he wants to accept the million dollars because he represents himself, but in the first scenario, a person was not free to choose because he was represented by God or Adam, and never himself."

Wow. I must say that you completely missed Paul's point. The nature of analogies is that they break down *at some point*. But I don't think that you got the gist of the analogy that Paul gave.

The context of the discussion has to do with justice. You should have focused on the word *deserve* for the analogy and 'critiqued' from that angle.

The point was that because he *inherited* the money he didn't *deserve* it. This is compared to inheriting *nothing* (poverty). If there was an inheritance of $1M (blessing), then you would not be saying that it was *unjust*. But since there's not an inheritance and you are poor (sin), you say that it's unjust. If there is no inheritance, someone is not *free* to chose have an inheritance. The inheritance *itself* does not depend on the person who could possibly chose to accept it. Now you may think that this is immoral, but the analogy does not break down where you thought it did.

In the analogy, you can 'accept' original sin (poverty) as just or not 'accept' (cognitive assent) it as you have done - calling it immoral - and whine and bicker as his interlocutor was apparently doing.

 
At 10/08/2006 9:57 AM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10/08/2006 10:03 AM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

"Wow. I must say that you completely missed Paul's point. The nature of analogies is that they break down *at some point*. But I don't think that you got the gist of the analogy that Paul gave."

OH BULLSHIT!

By saying that all analogies break down "at some point", you might as well qualify all anologies, because any time they fail, you can just say, "Oh, well that's where it breaks down."

The point is that the analogy doesn't even get off the ground. On one hand, you have an unearned inheritence that you have a choice to accept, and on the other, you have the inheritence of sin, which according to Christian doctrine, you both earn AND deserve, regardless of choice!

"In the analogy, you can 'accept' original sin (poverty) as just or not 'accept' (cognitive assent) it as you have done"

So in other words, it's not only just a bad analogy, but also an equivocation of the word "accept". Good job!

In one context of acceptance, you receive something, given the choice (I accept your offer), and in the other, acceptance is simply an acknowledgement of that which is not a choice (i.e., I accept my grandmother's death). Here you're trying to use both contexts at the same time!

Wait... having a choice and not having a choice... Wasn't that Aaron's point in the first place?

 
At 10/08/2006 11:03 AM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

*THE INHERITANCE IS REGARDLESS OF CHOICE* What's hard about this? My point it is that a good analogy, in this sense.

Are you telling me that I can choose to have an inheritance, like I could choose who my grandfather is (this was also in the analogy)?

Oh by the way, *all* analogies are qualified as breaking down at some point. This is their nature. But it doesn't break down where Aaron wants it to. ;)

Again, the discussion is about *justice*! read it on tblogue.

 
At 10/08/2006 11:13 AM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

"Are you telling me that I can choose to have an inheritance, like I could choose who my grandfather is (this was also in the analogy)?"

No, that's not what I said at all. I guess we can add a failure to read to your resume. Again, good job.

 
At 10/08/2006 11:39 AM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

I said, "Are you telling me that I can choose to have an inheritance, like I could choose who my grandfather is (this was also in the analogy)?"

Mr. Neil responded, "No, that's not what I said at all. I guess we can add a failure to read to your resume. Again, good job."

Well that's what the *analogy* said and why you guys miss the point. Maybe it's you who failed to read and understand?

Oh and there was *no* equivocation in what I was saying about acceptance. The acceptance was cognitive assent to the *justice* of the inheritance in *both* cases.

 
At 10/09/2006 9:24 AM, Blogger Vic declaimed...

aarondoesntgetit, your explanation breaks down, because the analogy is flawed from the outset.

Point to a million dollars.

Easy, isn't it?

Now point to 'original sin'.

If you don't get it now, it's you who is the real idiot.

 
At 10/09/2006 12:26 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Wow. I must say that you completely missed Paul's point.

No, I think I understood it fairly well.

The nature of analogies is that they break down *at some point*.

You missed MY point it seems. I was showing that those two instances were not analogous to begin with. Those two scenarios were NOT an analogy at all.

But I don't think that you got the gist of the analogy that Paul gave.

Well lets look at your analysis of it and see just how much I "didnt get" shall we?

The context of the discussion has to do with justice. You should have focused on the word *deserve* for the analogy and 'critiqued' from that angle.

I discarded the word "deserve" deliberately because Paul Manata didnt understand the nature of "deserving" an "inheritance". I didnt bother writing about the issue of "deserve" because it seemed more important for me to focus on the agents in the failed analogy. I now see that I should have been more thorough in my criticism of the pseudo-analogy.

The point was that because he *inherited* the money he didn't *deserve* it.

Um, yes, I understood that part. Notice that in my post I said "In the second scenario, a person accepts a million dollars that he didn't earn." Now, since you dont seem to "get it," let me tell you that the phrase "didnt earn" is my auto-corrected rephrasing of Manata's mistaken "didnt deserve" statement.

Listen pal, if I choose to give a relative or a complete stranger some money, do they NOT deserve it? It is MY money with which to choose who deserves it. Now, granted, the recipient didnt EARN it (and I noted as much in my post), but the DESERVING of the money is for the giver to decide, not the receiver, and not some third party observer. So, the mere fact that the rich relative CHOSE to give someone a million dollars ALONE qualifies the recipient as deserving of it, since the giver of the cash deemed the recipient to be so.

It seems that YOU and Manata just dont get the concept of self-ownership and its according property rights. But then again, you think that people deserve to perish in flames for things that happened before they existed. And you think that spilling the blood of the innocent cleanses the hands of the guilty, so I shouldnt expect you to understand the concept of self-ownership and property rights too well.

So what have we learned? Now we have learned that Manata's pseudo-analogy failed on EVEN MORE LEVELS than I previously noted.

This is compared to inheriting *nothing* (poverty).

But when one inherits *nothing*, then one does NOT inherit. So the act of "inherit" never enters the equation when it comes to *nothing*.

If there was an inheritance of $1M (blessing), then you would not be saying that it was *unjust*. But since there's not an inheritance and you are poor (sin), you say that it's unjust.

Ummmm, news flash: sin is not the equivalent of inheriting nothing. Sin is being branded guilty for an evil action. Sin is not a resource (money) to be handed out among a crowd. Sin is a GUILTY VERDICT!

So which poor people are born GUILTY of a crime against another? Even the poorest slums in the West dont have criminal guilt assigned to their newborns.

If there is no inheritance, someone is not *free* to chose have an inheritance.

True.

The inheritance *itself* does not depend on he person who could possibly chose to accept it.

Agreed.

Now you may think that this is immoral, but the analogy does not break down where you thought it did.

I dont think its immoral, just unlucky. Yet, I still maintain that the analogy fails where I said it did.

The reason for that is because in the inheritance example, the recipient has the opportunity to excercise his self-ownership. He gets to make a choice in the matter. He could choose not to be represented by his rich uncle or choose not to accept the inheritance. But in the sin example, the recipient of the guilty verdict (sin) has no choice over his representative (Adam) because God chose for him. The recipient of the sin is simply in a Kangaroo court; a sham trial; a 3 ring circus.

To use a more proper and recent analogy, the sinner is simply labelled an "enemy combatant" and must languish in prison, flying in the face of habeus corpus, with no hope of clearning his name or saving himself, and yet it is a KNOWN FACT that this "Enemy combatant" was not even born when the alleged terrorist acts took place!

Trying to analogize a self-ownership scenario (inheritance) with an other-ownership scenario (Adam and sin) is virtually mpossible. Can you analogize war and peace? Can you analogize God and Satan?

Aaronjustdoesntgetit, you just dont get it!

 
At 10/09/2006 12:34 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

I want to add one more thing:

Unlike a resource (money), where the owner of it can choose who deserves it, criminal guilt (sin) is not a resource, but a judgement of an action.

A judgement of an action is not something that can be handed out to deserving recipients. I cant "choose" that aaronjustdoesntgetit is guilty of murder. A murderer cannot choose to hand over his guilt to someone else, even if that other person is willing to accept it.

Sin and money, like god and satan, are not analogous. They are fundamentally different and perhaps even mutually exclusive.

Yet these Christians try to toss around sin like its money to be bartered with between you and Jesus!

Youre born guilty for things you DIDNT do, yet you can get away with murder later on as long as you acknowledge that an innocent bystander suffered the death penalty so you could walk free in the streets!

Heres a salvation analogy for you: Would you want an innocent man to spend life in jail so that a child molester or serial killer could walk the streets free?

Fucking repugnant. Talk about a denial of self-ownership and responsibility!

Christians just dont get it.

 
At 10/11/2006 2:52 PM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

Hmm... Very interesting.

Hey, Kinney. I had some bozo show up on my blog the other day that said he had a bone to pick with your rebuttal to Manata, but he only wanted to post it on my blog for some reason. I invited him over here, but I don't see him posting.

Heads up, anyway.

Oh, and apparently I "stengthened his faith". I'll have an extra special post rightchere on the Goose this Sunday about that very topic. Don'tcha dare miss it!

 
At 10/12/2006 12:04 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

LOL Niel where did that guy go?

Maybe he didnt pray hard enough for Jesus to give him the power to argue with me LOL

 
At 10/13/2006 10:58 AM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

Aaron ignorantly blurted (typical), "LOL Niel where did that guy go?

Maybe he didnt pray hard enough for Jesus to give him the power to argue with me LOL"

Or maybe he's tired of reading your stupid nonsense and oft repeated assertions. Don't take the nonreplies of your interlocutor as not being able to answer you. I feel no need to answer you again and again and again when all you do is repeat the substance of what you've stated before.

You have a reputation for *misrepresenting* most and I think you are *dishonest* - more reasons why I feel no need to answer you point by point or reply to most of your terrible rhetoric. But, don't be disheartened, you are not alone.

 
At 10/13/2006 12:01 PM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! So it WAS you! That'll make this Sunday's post that much sweeter!

 
At 10/13/2006 12:12 PM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

mr neil ignorantly asserted, "BWAHAHAHAHA!!! So it WAS you! That'll make this Sunday's post that much sweeter!"

what was me?

I have never been to your blog nor do I intend to as I think there would be a high probability of me becoming dumber if I did.

Did you misread *again* when I said *HE'S* tired....? I was giving a possible reason for *him*. Then, I went on to explain why *I* did not reply in *this* thread. Please go back to first grade and learn how to read.

More reasons to ignore the nonsense from this site.

If atheism makes one this dumb, then so much the worse for atheism.

 
At 10/13/2006 1:04 PM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

Fair enough!

So I'll just assume that it wasn't you. You seemed to have been speaking as though you were aware of what was going on, and yet you did not actually read the post yourself. Interesting. Then whoever it was STILL hasn't found the courage to address Kinney's post at all.

You know what? That's good! Because I don't need apologists at my blog anyway.

 
At 10/13/2006 1:20 PM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10/13/2006 1:22 PM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

You know what? On a second read, I see no indication given that you were not referring to yourself when you said "he". You simply jumped from talking about "him" to talking about yourself within the context of the same paragraph, so how would I have known that you were not making a self-referential claim?

When you do that, you IMPLY that you and my mystery poster are one and the same! Basic grammar, ya idgit! Haven't you ever heard of a topic sentence?!

So yes, apparently I misread you, but HOW COULD I NOT!?

 
At 10/13/2006 1:23 PM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

Umm have you heard of first person vs third person pronouns?

At best, you should have asked rather than make yourself look dumb. This brings up another instance of *context*.

 
At 10/13/2006 1:25 PM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

i don't refer to myself in the third person as 'he'.

 
At 10/13/2006 1:34 PM, Blogger aaronjustdoesntgetit declaimed...

I said, "At best, you should have asked rather than make yourself look dumb. This brings up another instance of *context*."

And it's another instance of not *attempting* to understand your interlocutor before spewing off.

 
At 10/13/2006 1:41 PM, Blogger Mr. Neil declaimed...

"Umm have you heard of first person vs third person pronouns?"

Umm... YES! But I'm also aware of literary devices in which one shifts from third person to first person within the context of a single paragraph.

But whatever... You said it's not you, right? Then it's not you.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home