"Sins of the Father". A phrase referring to one's ancestral misdeeds or really just some backwards thinking that should've stayed in the 20th Century. Any thoughts?
Sin by Blood - Why do some people follow this thinking?
- Thread starter The Great Chandler
- Start date
I heard they still do that in North Korea- If you piss off Kim Jong Un bad enough, he'll sentence you, your kids,and your kids' kids, to the gulag. "Three generations punishment".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...ere-s-a-three-generations-of-punishment-rule/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...ere-s-a-three-generations-of-punishment-rule/
I generally disagree with the notion but I can somewhat understand where it might come from on a personal level. I'm sure that there are incidents where people have been hurt by another person so much that they distrust any relatives or close acquaintances automatically. It's an unfortunate fact of life that people can and often are dicks to other peoples and I can see how that might influence a person's opinion or thoughts on another person tangentially related to the offender. That being said I don't find that kind of thinking healthy, although the chance is there that the children take after the parent there is an equal chance that the children are their own people and deserve to be judged as such. I think it's a very situational thing on the personal level although I do disagree with the practice in general.
When it relates to the sins of the father on a group or societal level, that's where I can safely say to fuck off with that shit. White guilt (and any other types of shaming or guilt brought on by the actions of past family and ancestors uninfluenced by those in the present) is a toxic and demeaning approach to living one's life. I've noticed that it seems to affect the accusers more negatively than the intended recipients, I think that's indicative of the type of people who use the tactic often.
When it relates to the sins of the father on a group or societal level, that's where I can safely say to fuck off with that shit. White guilt (and any other types of shaming or guilt brought on by the actions of past family and ancestors uninfluenced by those in the present) is a toxic and demeaning approach to living one's life. I've noticed that it seems to affect the accusers more negatively than the intended recipients, I think that's indicative of the type of people who use the tactic often.
I actually don't agree with Sin by Blood. Yes I get that a certain group of people might of done some misdeeds in the past. But does that give people right to constantly bash people with information that your people were oppressed by a specific group and that you should get special treatment? I understand its a way of reminding people of a certain misdeed, but from people I've meet; they only say this to guilt trip people into giving them the special treatment.
Seems like that idea is a pretty big difference between modern, western society, vs most other, historical societies. We have this huge emphasis on the individual being judged on their own merits, not on unchangable, inherent factors like family, his race, sex, etc.
But in the past, and in other societies, it was a given that all that other stuff largely defined you- that if you were born into a poor, lower class family that made you inherently different to a noble and you'd be judged accordingly. Or that people from this family had such-and-such a trait, or same for different races, or people from different regions, etc.
Those beliefs are the basis of the whole idea of inherited royalty, and peers and nobility, as well as stuff like ancestor worship, and class/caste systems- that the cumulative acts of all your past family, or past acts of your whole race/nationality/region, reflect on you as an individual. If your family or countrymen were assholes, that makes you an asshole by default.
Personally, I'm pretty big on that western beleif of judging individuals as individuals- letting them fail or succeed on thier own actions, rather than judging them off inherent, 'identity' traits like social class or race or nationality or whatever.
But I also think that idea can go too far- like how its becoming taboo to talk about race-wide IQ averages, or how some people automatically assume any statistical difference between men and women can only be because of sexist culture, not even considering it a possibility that there might be inherent, biologically-caused difference in male v female behaviour (even though science clearly says there are- that sex hormones effect behaviour, etc).
Its like they confused the philosphical idea (that we should judge people as if everyone is identical, apart from their behaviour), with thinking that's an objective description of reality (thinking that every person, and every group is identical- therefore racial average iq differences, or differences in male vs female job preferences can't exist)
Personally, I dont see any conflict in saying "differences exist (mostly minor ones) between different groups, but in terms of the law, morals, philosophically, it makes sense to ignore those minor differences and treat everyone rhe same".
Tldr- nah is bullshit- You can only judge someone on stuff they, personally did. Judging them on shit thier grandpa did, or that someone who looks kinda similar to them did, is unfair and illogical.
But in the past, and in other societies, it was a given that all that other stuff largely defined you- that if you were born into a poor, lower class family that made you inherently different to a noble and you'd be judged accordingly. Or that people from this family had such-and-such a trait, or same for different races, or people from different regions, etc.
Those beliefs are the basis of the whole idea of inherited royalty, and peers and nobility, as well as stuff like ancestor worship, and class/caste systems- that the cumulative acts of all your past family, or past acts of your whole race/nationality/region, reflect on you as an individual. If your family or countrymen were assholes, that makes you an asshole by default.
Personally, I'm pretty big on that western beleif of judging individuals as individuals- letting them fail or succeed on thier own actions, rather than judging them off inherent, 'identity' traits like social class or race or nationality or whatever.
But I also think that idea can go too far- like how its becoming taboo to talk about race-wide IQ averages, or how some people automatically assume any statistical difference between men and women can only be because of sexist culture, not even considering it a possibility that there might be inherent, biologically-caused difference in male v female behaviour (even though science clearly says there are- that sex hormones effect behaviour, etc).
Its like they confused the philosphical idea (that we should judge people as if everyone is identical, apart from their behaviour), with thinking that's an objective description of reality (thinking that every person, and every group is identical- therefore racial average iq differences, or differences in male vs female job preferences can't exist)
Personally, I dont see any conflict in saying "differences exist (mostly minor ones) between different groups, but in terms of the law, morals, philosophically, it makes sense to ignore those minor differences and treat everyone rhe same".
Tldr- nah is bullshit- You can only judge someone on stuff they, personally did. Judging them on shit thier grandpa did, or that someone who looks kinda similar to them did, is unfair and illogical.
It has no place in an egalitarian society. It's so dumb that they knew it was dumb in the 18th century. That's why corruption of blood is forbidden in the US Constitution. It wasn't even a later amendment.
It's making a comeback because SJWs wanna use it as a cudgel for wealth redistribution while leveraging identity politics.
When you condemn me for my group, you're a bigot. When I condemn you for your group, I'm a hero.
I
IV 445
Guest
kiwifarms.net
This is a common mistranslation
The children of this father are not so innocent after all. In the same book, God describes how nobody will be punished for somebody else’s actions:
Further,
Context and reading comprehension.
The children of this father are not so innocent after all. In the same book, God describes how nobody will be punished for somebody else’s actions:
Further,
Context and reading comprehension.
Sins of the father, in the Biblical sense, basically means that the father has a profound role in a child's life. If the father sins, he teaches his children to sin, which is a sin in itself. He lays the groundwork for the child to grow up wicked and sin.
As alluded to above, if the child rejects the father's sinful teachings, and leads a righteous life, God will NOT punish them, and expects that nobody else will. Furthermore, an offspring is explicitly not to be punished unless and until they themselves sin.
It's a fair system, and has been codified into secular law in most western counties. Bills of attainder and corruption of blood being specifically forbidden.
As alluded to above, if the child rejects the father's sinful teachings, and leads a righteous life, God will NOT punish them, and expects that nobody else will. Furthermore, an offspring is explicitly not to be punished unless and until they themselves sin.
It's a fair system, and has been codified into secular law in most western counties. Bills of attainder and corruption of blood being specifically forbidden.
That's a different situation though; that's more an intimation tactic.
Some people might be willing to throw their own lives away to stand up to the government, but wouldn't do it if it hurt their own kids and grandchildren.
Sure, that's the aim, but if you're the gulag'd kid, or grandkid, you're getting punished for your ancestor's sins.
In more collectivist societies it wouldn't been seen as even particularly unusual to hold a group accountable for the sin of an individual, simply because there's far more emphasis on the group than on the individual.
But it's also a very effective method of social control. Even our own Fearless Leader blinked when somebody threatened his family. Think of, say, the social credit system in China being based on not only your own actions, but the actions of those you associate with.
But it's also a very effective method of social control. Even our own Fearless Leader blinked when somebody threatened his family. Think of, say, the social credit system in China being based on not only your own actions, but the actions of those you associate with.
Sin by Blood is a concept that should be left in the dustbin of history.
When ancestral sins being placed upon descendants gets brought up today, it is usually in the context of reparations for colonization and slavery. The argument is "Well, you may not have participated in it, but you benefited indirectly from it! Your civilization is built on the backs your ancestors broke!"
Maybe, but not only have we recognized that those deeds were wrong, we have established a society where the descendants of slaves and slave owners can work together to build a brighter future. We might be benefiting from the wrongs our ancestors committed, but you can benefit to. The only one stopping you is you.
When ancestral sins being placed upon descendants gets brought up today, it is usually in the context of reparations for colonization and slavery. The argument is "Well, you may not have participated in it, but you benefited indirectly from it! Your civilization is built on the backs your ancestors broke!"
Maybe, but not only have we recognized that those deeds were wrong, we have established a society where the descendants of slaves and slave owners can work together to build a brighter future. We might be benefiting from the wrongs our ancestors committed, but you can benefit to. The only one stopping you is you.
Isn't this similar to the SJW concept of privilege?
"Sins of the father" is part of the whole package of Abrahamic religion. The god of Abraham is a blood god. It has nothing to do with a parent and child relationship, it's entirely predicated on literal bloodline. Blood is a predominant feature of the "holy" texts.
"Original sin" is assigned to every life, interwoven and inexorable from our blood. The blood of the innocent is a talisman against evil, and the only acceptable offering to the god of Abraham. Ingesting the blood of a holy vessel to achieve eternal life. When it's said, biblically, that the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons, this is a blood debt. There is no redemption from this debt but blood. Whether your loved your father, or hated him, or never met him, his crimes belong to you, his consequences belong to you.
This is Sunday school level information. And also ludicrous.
"Original sin" is assigned to every life, interwoven and inexorable from our blood. The blood of the innocent is a talisman against evil, and the only acceptable offering to the god of Abraham. Ingesting the blood of a holy vessel to achieve eternal life. When it's said, biblically, that the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons, this is a blood debt. There is no redemption from this debt but blood. Whether your loved your father, or hated him, or never met him, his crimes belong to you, his consequences belong to you.
This is Sunday school level information. And also ludicrous.
I think it's a concept that exists on some level within most if not all societies. I'm only saying most because I can't think of one in which it doesn't.
Everything from your starting point in life to how others will perceive you is based on your parent's actions, even if those actions lead to you being raised in an orphanage. There's a good deal you can do to better yourself or try and remove yourself from your family position (thinking of one of Shirley Phelps daughters who left Westaboro Baptist Church and became a Nurse active in anti-hate campaigns) but the taint will always be there. If your father was white trash, people will start from the default position that you are white trash too.
It's not really something you can even shake off in a single generation, you can see it very clearly among the frequently titled "Old Money" and the sneering attitude towards the "Nouveau Riche" in Europe. They can have more money and their children can go to all the best private schools the Old Money go to, it's possible to even intermarry if they're impoverished, but they're always going to be trashy pretenders and the bloodline will be devalued for having been "tainted".
It's not just something towards descendants either; when it became common knowledge in the community I was a faggot it tainted how my hyper-religious community viewed my parents too despite their own Orthodoxy.
I think most people would agree it's a silly concept, but it's there and nobody seems really interested in getting rid of it. Quite the reverse, in the West we're enforcing it more rabidly than ever.
Everything from your starting point in life to how others will perceive you is based on your parent's actions, even if those actions lead to you being raised in an orphanage. There's a good deal you can do to better yourself or try and remove yourself from your family position (thinking of one of Shirley Phelps daughters who left Westaboro Baptist Church and became a Nurse active in anti-hate campaigns) but the taint will always be there. If your father was white trash, people will start from the default position that you are white trash too.
It's not really something you can even shake off in a single generation, you can see it very clearly among the frequently titled "Old Money" and the sneering attitude towards the "Nouveau Riche" in Europe. They can have more money and their children can go to all the best private schools the Old Money go to, it's possible to even intermarry if they're impoverished, but they're always going to be trashy pretenders and the bloodline will be devalued for having been "tainted".
It's not just something towards descendants either; when it became common knowledge in the community I was a faggot it tainted how my hyper-religious community viewed my parents too despite their own Orthodoxy.
I think most people would agree it's a silly concept, but it's there and nobody seems really interested in getting rid of it. Quite the reverse, in the West we're enforcing it more rabidly than ever.
The biggest problem as alluded to earlier was it's never a uniform blame. It's always a bigoted targeted attack.
Every person's got a nation,religious group,parent etc with sin or blood on hands.
It's ok slaves blame me for my skin color but as a german racially person who is first and foremost an American if I demand the UK gives me money or the Roman's for what they did to Germans 2000 years ago that's laughable.
Why?
No one set a time table etc.
Sins of the father are always arbitrary that's its issue.
Now to counter point I understand the concept of a eugenic punishment while cruel and I cant agree with I get if you are an axe murderer and no one dares your son ending your blood line.
Every person's got a nation,religious group,parent etc with sin or blood on hands.
It's ok slaves blame me for my skin color but as a german racially person who is first and foremost an American if I demand the UK gives me money or the Roman's for what they did to Germans 2000 years ago that's laughable.
Why?
No one set a time table etc.
Sins of the father are always arbitrary that's its issue.
Now to counter point I understand the concept of a eugenic punishment while cruel and I cant agree with I get if you are an axe murderer and no one dares your son ending your blood line.
Similar threads
The Proliferation of Sissy Hypno on Social Media
The narcissism of feminism
