Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
I want to credit @Ellen Brown for this idea
Without regurgitating scripture, I'm curious in the Christian theology of original sin ergo, " the sins of the father" why do some Christians not take responsibility for ancestral actions but can take on the responsibility of the actions of Adam? For example many Christians regarding the issue of slavery and/or the termination of Native American lands or the mistreatment of others say:
"I was not around back then"
or
"My family didn't own slaves"
or
"My ancestors may have done that but that was a long time ago."
Why is it that you readily accept Adam's sin against God, who by all rights you can claim Adam as the progenitor of mankind, but choose to not accept the actions of your ethic ancestors to lands that did not belong to them or the mistreatment of people?
Edit: Changed Thread Title
Without regurgitating scripture, I'm curious in the Christian theology of original sin ergo, " the sins of the father" why do some Christians not take responsibility for ancestral actions but can take on the responsibility of the actions of Adam? For example many Christians regarding the issue of slavery and/or the termination of Native American lands or the mistreatment of others say:
"I was not around back then"
or
"My family didn't own slaves"
or
"My ancestors may have done that but that was a long time ago."
Why is it that you readily accept Adam's sin against God, who by all rights you can claim Adam as the progenitor of mankind, but choose to not accept the actions of your ethic ancestors to lands that did not belong to them or the mistreatment of people?
Edit: Changed Thread Title
Last edited: