>>513202916The western churches might have a hard time justifying this.
However, familiarize yourself with the difference between the later teaching of original sin, as it is known in the west, as a deviation from how it was known as ancestral sin in the early Church, and still in the one Church today.
The desert savage, as you might call him, St. Iraneus already taught in the 2nd century that, among the many effects of the fall, the propensity for sin is heritable depending on parentage in his Against Heresies, in the same way anyone with any intellectual honesty would consider temperament to be heritable today. This is ancestral sin, the ancient original teaching of the Church still used within Orthodoxy. Note that I'm not claiming that he would've known about the genetic heritability of IQ in the scientific sense, but it is a useful analogy because the anthropology of our theology has always been in accord with this notion in principle.
One of the great mistakes that the western denominations made was to adopt the error that St. Augustine made in turning sin into a legalistic concept of heritable guilt, that of original sin. Orthodoxy has never accepted this.
We recognize and bemoan the great propensity for sin that certain peoples have, or despise the brown people as you might call it, which further detaches them from the healing effects of an ascetic life of repentance and a struggle for grace.
But that's the point: we believe that even browns can overcome that propensity if they are willing, which they often aren't, especially jews and niggers.
We also reject the notion that we ought to subject ourselves to those who obstinately cling to error without repentance.
Obstinate error or sin becomes heresy, and heretics ought to be struck in the mouth as John Chrysostom puts it. Just as Christ whipped the heretics out of the temple.
But again, the western churches might have a hard time justifying all this in theological terms due to a difference in anthropology.
