On the bible judging the individual, and letting the collective go free

[amorphous_constellation]

In presupposing that societal organization revolves around the individual, wherever people might organize, this seems to in no way reflect the shape of general human behavior, and consequence. Though individuals might act in alignment with the good or the bad, they as faux 'individuals' are scarcely free of their actual status as production points, shaped by the forces of each system that preceded them. To say then, that each man is responsible for his own sin, though he is randomly thrown into a world where prior men work to construct qualities, is a non-sequitur and a reflection of human vanity

I believe individuals can exist, but they are extremely scarce. Most people do not go even a couple steps in that direction, of if they do, they turn around and head back on the path they were set to ride on. Some people become individuals, but they arrive at it only after a lifetime of experience. Becoming an individual is sort of morally ambiguous, as it can lead to qualities that are either admirable or dreadful. The only change is that this person is truly free of all influences, and has decided what everything truly means for himself. It is exceedingly rare as I said, and there probably only a few of these people that exist in every generation.

It is unclear if they even affect the whole all that much, though if they somehow do, I suppose they are somehow more accountable than others. I don't really believe that I am an individual, or that I have really met any. I should suppose that the individual would feel secure in finally knowing that they are one? In any case, aspiring to be one seems to be somewhat of a vain endeavor, though it would extricate a person out of the motions of the river. It seems that the weight of ambiguity might only increase once one is to jump out of it, and so it is not recommended, as it only saddles a person with information and responsibility which they probably can't handle

So in general, each individual 'cannot be judged for their own sin,' because this is giving ordinary people far more credit for what they are, than for what they really are.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Your critique is valid and to be taken seriously. The reason why it is still necessary to place responsibility on the individual is because doing so facilitates individualization. As to why we should become individuals - that gets into faith about the claims of Jesus. If someone is not open to the possibility that the human individual has a telos, then the perspective you detailed is the right one.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Your critique is valid and to be taken seriously. The reason why it is still necessary to place responsibility on the individual is because doing so facilitates individualization.

It presupposes it. Or presupposes a society where it is lauded

If someone is not open to the possibility that the human individual has a telos, then the perspective you detailed is the right one.

I am open to that but just think it's kinda rare

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@ideogenous_mover

Just a reminder...
The Tanakh, or Old Testament (yuck I hate that term) looks at Israel as a people, not so much as individuals. When Achan hides the gold under his tent, God says, "Israel has sinned." Throughout the Tanakh God deals with Israel as a group, rather than as individuals, primarily.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

@ideogenous_mover

Just a reminder...
The Tanakh, or Old Testament (yuck I hate that term) looks at Israel as a people, not so much as individuals. When Achan hides the gold under his tent, God says, "Israel has sinned." Throughout the Tanakh God deals with Israel as a group, rather than as individuals, primarily.

I don't know.. if you search for 'each man is responsible for his own sin,' don't you get a number of places where that concept comes up? When you try to interpret what Deut. 24:16 means for example, this is surely making people into individuals , in spite of negative effects that could confront whole societies. If a generation of fathers does something heroic, does that not save their children? It does. If the generation of the fathers does something stupid, like build all the drinking water pipes out of lead or something, does this not harm their children? So this verse seems quite anti-collective. "Sin" hits a society, and it might topple everything. The progeny help maintain things for the elderly, the elderly paved the way for the progeny. Either side of the boat can fail, and it might sink the whole boat

 

[capumetu]

In presupposing that societal organization revolves around the individual, wherever people might organize, this seems to in no way reflect the shape of general human behavior, and consequence. Though individuals might act in alignment with the good or the bad, they as faux 'individuals' are scarcely free of their actual status as production points, shaped by the forces of each system that preceded them. To say then, that each man is responsible for his own sin, though he is randomly thrown into a world where prior men work to construct qualities, is a non-sequitur and a reflection of human vanity

I believe individuals can exist, but they are extremely scarce. Most people do not go even a couple steps in that direction, of if they do, they turn around and head back on the path they were set to ride on. Some people become individuals, but they arrive at it only after a lifetime of experience. Becoming an individual is sort of morally ambiguous, as it can lead to qualities that are either admirable or dreadful. The only change is that this person is truly free of all influences, and has decided what everything truly means for himself. It is exceedingly rare as I said, and there probably only a few of these people that exist in every generation.

It is unclear if they even affect the whole all that much, though if they somehow do, I suppose they are somehow more accountable than others. I don't really believe that I am an individual, or that I have really met any. I should suppose that the individual would feel secure in finally knowing that they are one? In any case, aspiring to be one seems to be somewhat of a vain endeavor, though it would extricate a person out of the motions of the river. It seems that the weight of ambiguity might only increase once one is to jump out of it, and so it is not recommended, as it only saddles a person with information and responsibility which they probably can't handle

So in general, each individual 'cannot be judged for their own sin,' because this is giving ordinary people far more credit for what they are, than for what they really are.

Birds of a feather. People flock to those who are similar to their beliefs. As a Christian, each of us have chosen that path, and do our utmost not to stray, like you said. Are we individuals, to a degree, but if that degree threatens to disrupt the unity, then we must bring ourselves back in line with scripture.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't know.. if you search for 'each man is responsible for his own sin,' don't you get a number of places where that concept comes up? When you try to interpret what Deut. 24:16 means for example, this is surely making people into individuals , in spite of negative effects that could confront whole societies. If a generation of fathers does something heroic, does that not save their children? It does. If the generation of the fathers does something stupid, like build all the drinking water pipes out of lead or something, does this not harm their children? So this verse seems quite anti-collective. "Sin" hits a society, and it might topple everything. The progeny help maintain things for the elderly, the elderly paved the way for the progeny. Either side of the boat can fail, and it might sink the whole boat

Yes, it is also true that each man is responsible for his own sin--but that simply means that you can't have person B punished INSTEAD OF person A, the perp. It doesn't rule out Israel being dealt with as a nation.

For example, I think it only makes sense to say that when Judah fell into sin (idolatry, violence, not giving alms to the poor...) that there were still a remnant that remained faithfully obedient to God. Yet still all of Judah went into Captivity.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Yes, it is also true that each man is responsible for his own sin--but that simply means that you can't have person B punished INSTEAD OF person A, the perp. It doesn't rule out Israel being dealt with as a nation.

For example, I think it only makes sense to say that when Judah fell into sin (idolatry, violence, not giving alms to the poor...) that there were still a remnant that remained faithfully obedient to God. Yet still all of Judah went into Captivity.

Ok so maybe Judaism is different. But I think maybe my point still stands, as I think that Christianity was actually generated with extant material that changed the distribution. Not that I think this is the best way to think of it, as I think that our souls go back to a unified soul-stuff , and that the collective is the cogent analysis, for where causation resides. That is to say, I am only abstractly a separate entity from the others. Person B is punished by the actions of perp A, for person b was downstream of all of perp A's actions in the collective culture. The onus is on Person B to not absorb this fate in a way so as to repeat the error in rebellion to the good

 

[thomas t]

In presupposing that societal organization revolves around the individual, wherever people might organize, this seems to in no way reflect the shape of general human behavior, and consequence. Though individuals might act in alignment with the good or the bad, they as faux 'individuals' are scarcely free of their actual status as production points, shaped by the forces of each system that preceded them. To say then, that each man is responsible for his own sin, though he is randomly thrown into a world where prior men work to construct qualities, is a non-sequitur and a reflection of human vanity

I believe individuals can exist, but they are extremely scarce. Most people do not go even a couple steps in that direction, of if they do, they turn around and head back on the path they were set to ride on. Some people become individuals, but they arrive at it only after a lifetime of experience. Becoming an individual is sort of morally ambiguous, as it can lead to qualities that are either admirable or dreadful. The only change is that this person is truly free of all influences, and has decided what everything truly means for himself. It is exceedingly rare as I said, and there probably only a few of these people that exist in every generation.

It is unclear if they even affect the whole all that much, though if they somehow do, I suppose they are somehow more accountable than others. I don't really believe that I am an individual, or that I have really met any. I should suppose that the individual would feel secure in finally knowing that they are one? In any case, aspiring to be one seems to be somewhat of a vain endeavor, though it would extricate a person out of the motions of the river. It seems that the weight of ambiguity might only increase once one is to jump out of it, and so it is not recommended, as it only saddles a person with information and responsibility which they probably can't handle

So in general, each individual 'cannot be judged for their own sin,' because this is giving ordinary people far more credit for what they are, than for what they really are.

No, the Bible does not let the collective go free.
This becomes clear in the Book of Revelation chapters 2 and 3.
Actually, God judges both individuals and collectives, I think.

Usually, atheists complain because God judges collectives too often: he wiped out entire peoples in Canaan and (almost) all humanity during the flood, for instance.

I don't believe that one's behavior is 100% dependent from what the others do.

 

[ppp]

So in general, each individual 'cannot be judged for their own sin,' because this is giving ordinary people far more credit for what they are, than for what they really are.

Condemning an individual because of the ethnic culture or subculture that they are born into is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Condemning an individual because of the ethnic culture or subculture that they are born into is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

The conditions the individual faces are structured by the input of others into him. If I grow up where there are thirty bars on main street, and no regular jobs, but just a culture of intense drinking for example, then this fact of life might reach into me and twist my opportunities. My ma came from such a place, and she had to exit that place by living in her car, for example.

'Bigotry' also implies that there is an external judge, where on the contrary , the so-called 'individual' is clearly an embedded element within a culture, and such a person does not exactly have a vantage point where it is possible to become a 'bigot.' So that person is something else, but maybe there isn't a word for it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Usually, atheists complain because God judges collectives too often: he wiped out entire peoples in Canaan and (almost) all humanity during the flood, for instance.

I have no idea why that would be, seeing that nature itself judges collectives, which is something that every atheist can feel. If the collective did not prepare for the flood, or the disease, or the space rock, all of which come from nature , then the collective suffers .

 

[ppp]

The conditions the individual faces are structured by the input of others into him.

That is a profoundly incomplete statement. The conditions one faces are structured by the input of others, one's environment and oneself.

If I grow up where there are thirty bars on main street, and no regular jobs, but just a culture of intense drinking for example, then this fact of life might reach into me and twist my opportunities.

And it might not. Either way, this is such a generic, hypothetical statement that its says nothing about any given individual.

'Bigotry' also implies that there is an external judge, where on the contrary , the so-called 'individual' is clearly an embedded element within a culture, and such a person does not exactly have a vantage point where it is possible to become a 'bigot.' So that person is something else, but maybe there isn't a word for it.

You're confused. I am not applying the term to your abstract "so called 'individual'". I am saying that your statement characterizing the individual as the collective is supporting the act of judging a person based on their being a constituent of a particular group.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That is a profoundly incomplete statement. The conditions one faces are structured by the input of others, one's environment and oneself.

Well, I might put the environment before the others, but sure, it is something like that. In other words, there are are things that can roll over an individual before they get a chance to construct their individuality. Things that can affect everybody, before a person constructs their own personal reaction

And it might not. Either way, this is such a generic, hypothetical statement that its says nothing about any given individual.

The conditions and limitations wherein a person lives , might constrain behavior and make it more predicable

You're confused. I am not applying the term to your abstract "so called 'individual'". I am saying that your statement characterizing the individual as the collective is supporting the act of judging a person based on their being a constituent of a particular group.

Well, if you condemn an individual on the faux basis that they are all autodidacts, that seems to tar them with an austere lack of sympathy, for they are not autodidacts

As you list your religion as being ' none ,' are you saying that you are some kind of atheist? If so , this means you ground your logic more in science, correct? Show me where neuroscience for example, really supports a human entity as being free of influence. Show where environment and input from others comes after the input of personal individual development. I'm pretty sure that in psychology for example, behavior is at the end of a very long chain

 

[ppp]

The conditions and limitations wherein a person lives , might constrain behavior and make it more predicable

Neither constraint nor predictability is relevant to agency.

Well, if you condemn an individual on the faux basis that they are all autodidacts, that seems to tar them with an austere lack of sympathy, for they are not autodidacts

Again, relevance? Having responsibility for one's actions is a factor of agency, not whether the entity is self taught.

As you list your religion as being ' none ,' are you saying that you are some kind of atheist? If so , this means you ground your logic more in science, correct?

No. Science is built on logic. Not the other way around. If you are using logic that is based on a thing is what it is, is not what it is, and either is or is not, then we are coming from the same logical foundation.

Show me where neuroscience for example, really supports a human entity as being free of influence.

Why would I need to do that? My position assumed that humans are not free from influence.

Show where environment and input from others comes after the input of personal individual development.

Why would I need to do that? My position does not assume or depend upon an order or hierarchy.

I'm pretty sure that in psychology for example, behavior is at the end of a very long chain

I am pretty sure that it's more of a tree or a net than a chain, and that behavior lay at several points along that whatever it is. But the fact remains that there is a self-aware agent making decisions at the further points. This is the case, even if the universe is completely deterministic.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Neither constraint nor predictability is relevant to agency.

In my view, those things are barriers that agency has a hard time overcoming

Having responsibility for one's actions is a factor of agency, not whether the entity is self taught.

Responsibility can be attributed to one's actions, and in western culture, it is, possibly more than anywhere else. That is because our religion and philosophy strove to shake off 'fate.' This was a powerful notion before Christianity came for example, though of course, the Protestants sort of brought it back here and there. In any case, life is not equally fair for everyone, and so the attribution of responsibility can be cruel . 'Fate' at least gives leeway. It allows for a more natural input from constraint, predictability, and influence

Why would I need to do that? My position assumed that humans are not free from influence.

And what does influence do in your view ?

 

[ppp]

In my view, those things are barriers that agency has a hard time overcoming

Agency is the ability to form goals/desires and to make decisions and attempt to act upon his own behalf.

Responsibility can be attributed to one's actions, and in western culture, it is, possibly more than anywhere else. That is because our religion and philosophy strove to shake off 'fate.' This was a powerful notion before Christianity came for example, though of course, the Protestants sort of brought it back here and there. In any case, life is not equally fair for everyone, and so the attribution of responsibility can be cruel . 'Fate' at least gives leeway. It allows for a more natural input from constraint, predictability, and influence

I am not sure what your point is here, but it looks like some sort of appeal to consequences. I don't know. Please restate it if you think it's important.

And what does influence do in your view ?

Moves us. Shapes us. Modifies us.

 

[sojourner]

@ideogenous_mover

Just a reminder...
The Tanakh, or Old Testament (yuck I hate that term) looks at Israel as a people, not so much as individuals. When Achan hides the gold under his tent, God says, "Israel has sinned." Throughout the Tanakh God deals with Israel as a group, rather than as individuals, primarily.

Xy as well, in the beginning.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I am not sure what your point is here, but it looks like some sort of appeal to consequences. I don't know. Please restate it if you think it's important.

The problem is, that the human animal didn't evolve from a solitary animal , it is ultimately a collectivist animal. We are more like monkeys than most hawks. If our story has any kind of a future , I believe it extends only from what it can produce as packs. And so to be a good member of a pack, I think maybe the individual recognizes himself more fully as an input and output for influence . So for example, right now america is divided : and I don't want to talk politics, I'm only using this as an example. Now people want to view each other as explicitly choosing those views they disagree on. I disagree : I think there was a snowballing of causation that was pregnant with all these forms of perception. And it had to with errors on the part of everyone, on every side, in not having the humility to see that no one can keep up with the inflation of information that has descended upon us.

 

[ppp]

The problem is, that the human animal didn't evolve from a solitary animal , it is ultimately a collectivist animal. We are more like monkeys than most hawks.

Obviously. We are apes.

If our story has any kind of a future , I believe it extends only from what it can produce as packs. And so to be a good member of a pack, I think maybe the individual recognizes himself more fully as an input and output for influence .

I think that you are mistaken about what constitutes a good member of a pack. That you are defining good thru some sort of authoritarian standard. When the truth is that goodness is defined retroactively by success and productiveness of action.. And success throughout human history has been achieved through the extremes of rugged individualism and utter subsumption to the collective. As well as the range of behaviors that lay between those two poles. The truth is that both cooperation and conflict produce great benefit, and both create crap societies.
We have that range of behaviors in our nature because societies of agents need that range of behaviors to persist.