Anonymous #1 15w

I’ll pray for you

-20

Anonymous #2 15w

Pray for this dick

35

Anonymous cheesepussy 15w

They don’t do a lot of critical thinking

13

Anonymous #8 15w

Acknowledging ancestral injustices is about recognizing real historical harm and how its effects continue today. That’s very different from a spiritual teaching that applies universally to all people, regardless of their background. So the comparison doesn’t hold up.

-3

Anonymous #9 15w

Pray for this dihh 💔🥀

14

Anonymous #8 15w

So your reason for why white Americans should reject responsibility for historical injustice, but we should all accept responsibility for the original sin is … because God said so? Lmfao please you have to do better than that

17

Anonymous #8 15w

Your argument might hold up if there weren’t many instances throughout the Bible of intergenerational punishment because someone’s ancestor did something? Also, Christian teaching says that periods and the pain of childbirth are women’s punishment for Eve eating the fruit, so you may want to brush up on your reading lol

14

Anonymous OP 15w

It’s odd to single out ‘white Americans’ like that, as if no one else has ancestors with injustice in their history. That kind of framing feels racially loaded and unhelpful. Also, I never said people shouldn’t acknowledge past harm. I said comparing historical injustice to original sin misunderstands both ideas.

4

Anonymous #8 15w

Original sin is about the condition of all humanity, not personal blame passed down. The Bible itself discourages inherited guilt in Ezekiel 18:20. ‘Lmfao please you have to do better than that.’ I get this topic stirs emotion, but if we want real dialogue, mockery doesn’t help understanding.

3

Anonymous #8 15w

You’re right some Old Testament passages mention consequences across generations, but you’re missing the full picture. Scripture later corrects that idea: ‘The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father… the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.’ (Ezekiel 18:20)

1

Anonymous #8 15w

That verse directly rejects inherited guilt. Christianity builds on that by teaching personal moral responsibility, not generational blame. Regarding pain in childbirth and periods, Genesis 3 describes consequences of the Fall, not a punishment targeting women as blameworthy.

1

Anonymous #8 15w

The Church teaches these are effects of original sin impacting all humanity’s fallen condition, not a moral punishment aimed specifically at women. Pain and hardships reflect the brokenness of the world after sin, not a deserved penalty on women alone.

2

Anonymous #8 15w

Take it too a publisher bud. Clearly you like fiction books

4

Anonymous #7 15w

Publishing is done by humans, so not exactly a guarantee of truth or perfection

2

Anonymous #8 15w

Wow. Ngl I stopped reading after you started bitching about me being mean to white Americans lol victim card declined

5

Anonymous #7 15w

Right, and I decided reading his dissertation wasn’t worth it after “that kind of framing feels racially loaded” lol that was the last thing I read but respect to you for finishing it

6

Anonymous #11 15w

I said who 😭

8

Anonymous OP 15w

Avoiding a point because it challenges your framing isn’t counterargument, it’s evasion, and it reflects willful ignorance of the discussion.

0

Anonymous #8 15w

Nah, I just wasn’t about to listen to you moaning about how we should center the feelings of white Americans in a conversation about racism, after all, we know they’re the real victims of it😂

2

Anonymous OP 15w

Misrepresenting what I said doesn’t strengthen your position, it just shows you’re not arguing in good faith.

-1

Anonymous #8 15w

That’s obviously where it was going “why are you saying things that make me look bad? The blacks are bad too!” And then talking about arguing in good faith 😭 do you know what Whataboutism is?

6

Anonymous OP 15w

You misrepresented my point, ignored the actual argument, and replaced it with sarcasm. That’s not ‘whataboutism’—which deflects criticism by raising unrelated issues. I drew a direct comparison to expose a flawed analogy. If that makes you uncomfortable, mocking it doesn’t make it less valid.

-1

Anonymous #8 15w

Well you should’ve opened your longwinded outburst with the important part, but you instead chose to open with white grievance so……😂

6

Anonymous OP 15w

It’s telling that you never addressed the actual point, that your analogy between original sin and historical injustice collapses under scrutiny. Instead, you sidestepped into sarcasm and projection. If you believed your position could hold up, you’d engage the argument. You didn’t. That says enough.

-1

Anonymous #8 15w

Except it doesn’t collapse under scrutiny lol either you’re okay with people being held responsible for things their ancestors did or you aren’t… thanks for playing though!

4

Anonymous OP 15w

Repeating a flawed analogy isn’t an argument. Original sin = universal condition, not inherited blame. Historical injustice = real-world consequences. If you can’t engage the difference, sarcasm won’t cover it. You’re not debating, you’re deflecting

0

Anonymous #8 15w

It is inherited blame if her descendants are being punished though :( Seems like God is of the belief that you do pay the price for your ancestors’ misdeeds

4

Anonymous #8 15w

And no, I’m still not reading that book you wrote about being inconsiderate to white Americans lmao such unbusy and jobless behavior

2

Anonymous OP 15w

You’re still seeing blame where Scripture speaks of brokenness. Original sin isn’t about punishment, it’s about the condition we all share. God doesn’t hold us guilty for Eve’s sin; He offers redemption through Christ. That’s not condemnation. That’s mercy.

0

Anonymous #8 15w

Sorry I think God just straight up lied and you believed it because it clearly is about punishment😭 Mind you, he’s offering mercy from something he apparently created lmao

3

Anonymous OP 15w

If your only response is mockery, then you’re not critiquing the idea, you’re avoiding it. You don’t have to agree, but misrepresenting the doctrine just to laugh at it says more about your intent than the argument itself.

-1

Anonymous #8 15w

You’re the one misrepresenting the reality 😂😂😂 the mental gymnastics to act like “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children…’” — Genesis 3:16 isn’t explicitly a punishment being put on female descendants of Eve for her actions is truly Olympic level 😂😂😂😂 in psychiatry, they called that a delusion, but I guess we should expect those from your group

4

Anonymous OP 15w

You’re quoting the consequence, but ignoring the context. Genesis 3 doesn’t say ‘I punish you’ it describes a broken order that results from sin, not an imposed sentence passed down in anger. That’s not gymnastics. It’s reading beyond surface level.

-1

Anonymous #8 15w

“I’m going to cause you pain” isn’t a punishment? Phew you’ve passed delusion and entered psychosis 😂

4

Anonymous OP 15w

You saying white people were being unfairly targeted by this post should’ve been included number one that you were mentally unwell

4

Anonymous OP 15w

Quoting the verse doesn’t refute the interpretation. Saying “I will” doesn’t mean “I punish” it means God is describing the consequence of a fallen order, not acting out of vengeance. Theology isn’t built on surface readings alone.

0

Anonymous #8 15w

You’re reaching so hardddddd😂😂😂😂”consequence” is synonymous with “punishment” here, sorry! Especially when it seems like god pulled this “consequence” out his ass and afflicted her and her descendants with it just because he could…

4

Anonymous OP 15w

Calling it punishment doesn’t make it so. In theology, punishment implies justice against wrongdoing. A consequence describes what flows from disorder. God’s words in Genesis mark the fallout of sin, not retribution. The distinction matters.

0

Anonymous #8 15w

Your entire argument hinges on a negligible semantic nuance when there’s no material difference between the two - it’s very sad how brainwashed you are

3

Anonymous OP 15w

Reducing complex ideas to “just semantics” is a tactic to dodge substance. The difference between punishment and consequence is foundational in theology. Ignoring that doesn’t make it vanish, it only reveals a refusal to engage seriously.

0

Anonymous #8 15w

There is no substance lol, simply because God’s framing of it suggested it wasn’t done as a punishment doesn’t mean it wasn’t, because it was lol

5

Anonymous OP 15w

Simply repeating a claim doesn’t make it true. Saying “it was a punishment because I say so” isn’t argument, it’s assertion. Meaningful discussion requires reasons, not just declarations.

-1