First, I have to laud Lord Lok’ri for giving us this essay of his.
I’m staunchly on his side in opposing the very concept of Forgivable Generational Inherited Sin. This idea is indeed a recent idea and it is not the same - nor does it translate readily in either direction - as that of generational slavery.
I say that as someone coming from a background of generational slavery. As may be known, my family remained in debt slavery for generations after incurring substantial financial debt.
Neither sin nor virtue (and I want to point out here that virtue is not in a straightforwad way the antonym to sin) are inherited from parent to child. Lord Lok’ri pointed out rightly, that rather, growing up in a sinful environment, with sinful parents, will predispose one to be sinful, while growing up in a virtuous environment with virtuous parents will see those under their proper care probably inclined to be virtuous. It’s an effect of nurture, though, not of nature, nothing that is handed onto the next generation like eye colour. Nor is sin transferrable as monetary debt is. But to see why, we need to first understand what sin is! So, I will try to do that rather then slinging Quotes of well-known Scriptural snippets without applying reason towards their understanding:
I. What is Sin?
People tend to look at sin like it would be an offense like any other. Someone wronging another or going against some societal rule. Nothing could be further from the truth! Who would be the victim of such an offense? Clearly it would have to be God. As sin would be an offense either against God directly or His rules.
To understand that this can’t be the case, one must first grasp that God is not just like any other person. Strictly speaking, He is no person at all, even though He at times appears to us as if He would be a person - that is due to our limitations, though, not His! God is Perfect Being. Nothing can add to Him and nothing can take away from Him.
So, clearly God can’t be a victim of our transgressions! What kind of perfect being would he be, if we could properly describe Him as a victim, after all? If we imagine God like that, then we worship an idol, rather then the Transcendent, All-Good, Cause-of-All-Causes.
Sin, is then not taking away something from God, or hurting or otherwise damaging Him. The first sin of humankind is made clear by the signs of circle and broken circle. Mankind - all of us, indeed - broke away from God. This is not to be misunderstood as taking something away from God, though, we are still His, entirely. It is to be understood, rather, as us stopping to listen to him. The wronged party in Sin is not God, but the sinner! In our vain and useless effort to distance ourselves from God, we only hurt ourselves. Only by realigning ourselves again, can we mend, what we have broken - ourselves.
God, all the while, remains perfect, unpertubed, everlasting. He is there, we can’t make him go away. We can just decide to ignore that he is there all along. All sin consists in ignoring God in some regard.
And yes, even the Empire, even the Amarr - whether ‘true’ or else - are not in perfect communion with God. As is made clear by the sign of the Empire: The circle conjoined, albeit imperfectly.
II: Why God is Un-‘Unforgiving-Forgiving’
Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as resentment and vengeance (however justified it might be), and with an increased ability to wish the offender well.
God, thus, can’t be a forgiving God, as it would imply Him being capable of being a victim. Of Harbouring negative emotions, because of some measly human. God, clearly, is transcending notions of forgiveness. Forgiveness is something imperfect beings - such as us humans - are capable of - and should make ample use of in my opinion. Yet, it is a sign of our imperfection. It would be a category mistake to apply an attribute of imperfect beings to a perfect being, though! Of course, unless we are talking in metaphor and analogy.
Similarly, though, to say God is an ‘unforgiving god’ - in any non-analogical or non-metaphorical way - would mean to make just the same, stupid mistake. To be unforgiving means to be in a position that allows one to show forgiveness but then to withold it. To say that God -literally- is unforgiving would then not only mean that he is imperfect as he can be a victim, he’d also be petty.
So, as the ‘forgiving’ would be properly misapplied to God in His perfection, so is ‘unforgiving’. God, again, transcends that dichotomy that only applies to less perfect beings.
III. Why there is Hope.
Scripture, though, speaks - especially in it’s oldest parts - about God as if He is unfurgiving or merciless. And also as if he is forgiving and merciful. This is easily understood once one realizes that that talk about God must be metaphorical or said in analogy - for the reasons I have been given above. But also it should be easy to see that a being that is All-Perfect can’t just be done full justice by our human words. That is why the cataphatic path towards knowing God always needs to be accompanied by the apophatic path, as the former is in dire need of the latter one as a corrective!
So, that said, I can only struggle to make more plain what Scripture is alluding to, when talking about God’s wrath being immense. His justice being swift and decisive. His tolerance being limited.
If sin consists in hurting oneself, by ignoring God, then, really, the damnation is not consequence of sinful action. Sinful action already is damnation brought onto us by ourseves. What could be more immense, what could be more swift and decisive? And if we go on this path of sin, then it will eventually our end. Tolerance is limited.
On the other hand, there is the Scriptural promise of Reclaiming and redemption. Similar to damation comes salvation. It’s not the reward for aligning yourself with God: Salvation consists in being aligned with God. Redemption, then, is re-alignment with God and it is always open, if even incrementally, as long as we can do just that.
IV. On the Utter and Total Stupidity of the Concept of ‘Forgivable Generational Inherited Sin’
As we have seen, to justify something as ‘forgivable generational inherited sin’, one would need to
- Assume that God is able to be victim and thus imperfect.
- That sin is either to be inherited like a genetic trait
- or can be passed on like monetary debt.
The third point can be declined as we have seen above in that sin is not a transactable thing. It’s not even a thing, it is rather a disalignment mainly of action. You can’t just hand it over like that. The second point can be dismissed for the same reason. And the first point is so abject in it’s ignorance that there is no further treatment of it needed.
I would love to participate in that endeavour, if you’d be willing to let me, Lord Lok’ri!
Conjoined in God,
N. Mithra