Are we responsible for the sins of our gr.-gr.-grandparents

[ThePainefulTruth]

To me this is sadistic vengeance.

I don't believe in it. Why should the innocent suffer for someone else's sins?

I question the benevolence of such an entity.

It isn't the entities, it's the ones who invented the religion of fear. Hell is just an extension of that sadism.

According to the Jewish interpretation, its speaking about when a child carries on the same sin as his great-great- grandfather. Then he is punished for it as well.
As opposed to that, Ex. 34:7 says that G-d does kindness for 2,000 generations (lit. thousands - therefore minimum of two thousand).

Looks like a blatant contradiction to me.

I sure do want to hear a Christian point of view. We are responsible for are our own actions not for our family's.

Unless that guilt can be used to keep generations on end in line.

This is the sort of passage that makes me wonder if early Christians believed in a literal God at all.

Or Hebrews--who were the original proto-Christians.

A jealous God is a bit too fallible to fit the mainstream expectation of the Abrahamic God, IMO. And the idea that he would choose to enact vengeance for four or more generations is odd.

I'd characterize it as evil--not of God, but of the self-serving myth which the authors of the bible invented.

If I may say, hopefully without being attacked too badly, the Bible reads more like it was written by very angry men than by a superior being.

Would such an entity be so extremely bitter, vengeful and misogynistic?

No, in fact reason dictates that God has not interacted with the universe since its creation.

Is not the original sin of Adam and Eve god punishing everyone for their sin?

"Original Sin" is one of the most incredible lies of all the religions.

I sorta take it in that what we do that's harmful may affect the rest of our family and society, and that may go beyond just one generation. IOW, we do not live in a societal vacuum.

No, but the passage refers to the "sins of the fathers".

In Ezekiel it says in the chapter 18

18.20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

So everyone is responsabile of himself.

Yes, as would be reasonably expected, but this is just another example of biblical contradictions.

Why does the Bible contradict itself?

Best guess, because it was written by multiple authors, over the centuries, without divine coordination.

Tumah has answered this well.

Ex 37:6, 7:
"Yahweh—Yahweh is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in faithful love and truth, maintaining faithful love to a thousand generations, forgiving wrongdoing, rebellion, and sin. But He will not leave the guilty unpunished, bringing the consequences of the fathers’ wrongdoing on the children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation."

This tells us exactly what is meant in the OP.

Sorry, that's a major internal contradiction. And it begs the question, if God is forgiving wrongdoing, rebellion and sin in Exodus, whyfore the human sacrifice of Jesus?

If successive generations carry on the error of their parents and grandparents, they will be punished for it as well.

Yeah, but that's not what the quote in the OP is saying.

Those who obey their God, repenting of their sins, will be forgiven up to many generations. No one is found guilty of wrongdoing if they seek God and obey his laws. Having bad examples in your family is no excuse to break God's laws.

It doesn't matter if your keep God's law or not, if your ancestor sinned, you're a sinner.

Israel's kings were a classic example of this. Some of the worst kings had the best and most obedient sons, but some of the best kings had the worst. Individual hearts are at work here.

You make an excellent case for God being a laissez-faire, deist God.

 

[RRex]

No, in fact reason dictates that God has not interacted with the universe since its creation.

Which is why I identify as Deist.

I usually know the answers to the questions I ask, but thanks for your input.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Which is why I identify as Deist.

I usually know the answers to the questions I ask, but thanks for your input.

Looks like we're on the same page.

 

[metis]

No, but the passage refers to the "sins of the fathers".

How does that supposedly refute what I posted, especially since scripture often uses such terminology?

If one takes "original sin" as being true on a literal basis, that makes about as much sense as it would be for us to put you on trial because your great-grandfather stole a horse and buggy. No, your grandfather's sins were his sins and yours are yours, and we see no reference in the scriptures that say otherwise. If Joe Schmoe was stoned, it wasn't because of Gramps.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I dont know if you answered correctly because the question was based on a what-if.

If John does not sin is he stil held accountable if his great grand parents sin?

Does he need to repent for sins he did not commit?

Since christians can control our sins, it is possible not to sin. If christians do not sin, are christians accountable for our past family's sins? Do they repent for them?

This is asking abount inherited sin and its logic not the definition of sin and what it means in context.

Carlita, there is no such person as believer who does not sin. If you understand what sin is, you can understand why this statement is true.

The sin that Jesus came to give his life for is the imperfection in our soul, our imperfect flesh that has a propensity now to want to go the wrong way. This was inherited from Adam. (Rom 5:12) This is sin that we cannot control. No descendant of Adam is born without it.

Paul described a inner struggle with this "sin" at Rom 7:14-25:
"For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate. 16 However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine. 17 But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. 20 If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me.
21 I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law."

I have never seen it described better. But you see we have a rescuer?

The sin that we "choose" to commit is the one we CAN control. We are in the driver's seat...we are the captain of our own vessel....we steer it where we want it to go. If we deliberately crash it into a large object, can we complain about the damage or the cost to repair it?

We all stand or fall by what we choose to believe, so if we inherit beliefs from our parents and grandparents, without substantiating them, we are like those people who for generations teach false truths to their children. Is it the children's fault that they are taught the wrong things? No, but if they hang onto those false beliefs and perpetuate them without questioning them, then they are as culpable as their forebears. The truth is not hidden...it is out there for all to see, examine and choose....or reject.

 

[metis]

I dont know if you answered correctly because the question was based on a what-if.

If John does not sin is he stil held accountable if his great grand parents sin?

Does he need to repent for sins he did not commit?

Since christians can control our sins, it is possible not to sin. If christians do not sin, are christians accountable for our past family's sins? Do they repent for them?

This is asking abount inherited sin and its logic not the definition of sin and what it means in context.

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that these questions were not directed towards me, right?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that these questions were not directed towards me, right?

I did wanted a christian opinion. I cant remember if you believed in inherited sin or not, though.

 

[metis]

I did wanted a christian opinion. I cant remember if you believed in inherited sin or not, though.

I don't. I take credit for all the sins I've committed. I'd list them here but I don't think the server would survive it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't. I take credit for all the sins I've committed. I'd list them here but I don't think the server would survive it.

Lol I meant to quote @Deeje . I dont think there is original sin in Judaism, correct?

 

[Tumah]

Looks like a blatant contradiction to me.

When two different things are given two different properties, its usually very hard for them to contradict each other. Perhaps you didn't mean to use the word contradiction.

 

[Noa]

@OP

I do not, no. And in my countless interactions with Christians when I was one as well as after, I have yet to meet one that did or read a publication by one that did.

 

[George-ananda]

If he was that advanced, why didn't he sort it out himself?

He just leads the horses to water...

 

[JoStories]

Carlita, there is no such person as believer who does not sin. If you understand what sin is, you can understand why this statement is true.

The sin that Jesus came to give his life for is the imperfection in our soul, our imperfect flesh that has a propensity now to want to go the wrong way. This was inherited from Adam. (Rom 5:12) This is sin that we cannot control. No descendant of Adam is born without it.

Excuse me but horse pucky. First of all, you say that there is no person who does not sin. I don't sin. Simply because I don't believe in sin at all. Its a man made concept designed to browbeat people into submission. I will not ever believe in such a ludicrous concept. To even begin to discuss your POV, one has to define what sin is and that can change not only from person to person but from faith to faith and one religious text to another. So you will forgive me if I take your stance with a grain of salt.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How does that supposedly refute what I posted, especially since scripture often uses such terminology?

If one takes "original sin" as being true on a literal basis,....

But that's the problem. Through the acquisition of full self-awareness, we acquired free will, with the ability to recognize good from evil, and to choose between. Just because Adam and Eve screwed up, that doesn't mean everybody else will. We are all born innocent, and Genesis indicates that; but that doesn't stop many from interpreting it to mean that it was actually talking about sex. It's absurd, we're told to be fruitful and multiply via our original sin or original evil?

that makes about as much sense as it would be for us to put you on trial because your great-grandfather stole a horse and buggy.

I agree, it makes no sense, yet that's what the OP is saying--which is the whole point of bringing this up.

When two different things are given two different properties, its usually very hard for them to contradict each other. Perhaps you didn't mean to use the word contradiction.

God forgives for 2000 generations but condemns for 4. How is that not a contradiction???

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Excuse me but horse pucky. First of all, you say that there is no person who does not sin. I don't sin. Simply because I don't believe in sin at all. Its a man made concept designed to browbeat people into submission. I will not ever believe in such a ludicrous concept. To even begin to discuss your POV, one has to define what sin is and that can change not only from person to person but from faith to faith and one religious text to another. So you will forgive me if I take your stance with a grain of salt.

Yes, the many religions have piled on all kinds of behavior onto the "morality" pile making it look subjective, but there's still a true moral core which is objective. It's basically a rendering of the Golden Rule which is derived from nothing more than a universal desire (except for anarchists and tyrants) for good order: Morality is honoring the equal rights of all to our life, liberty, property and self-defense. That's it. All the other personally derived codes of behavior that don't violate the rights of others, I put under another label, virtue, in order to eliminate the confusion.

The root of all evil is a legal/moral double standard.

 

[McBell]

Yes, the many religions have piled on all kinds of behavior onto the "morality" pile making it look subjective, but there's still a true moral core which is objective. It's basically a rendering of the Golden Rule which is derived from nothing more than a universal desire (except for anarchists and tyrants) for good order: Morality is honoring the equal rights of all to our life, liberty, property and self-defense. That's it. All the other personally derived codes of behavior that don't violate the rights of others, I put under another label, virtue, in order to eliminate the confusion.

The root of all evil is a legal/moral double standard.

huh?
objective ... except?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

huh?
objective ... except?

Whatryagonnado? 98% want good order, and the remainder want the subjectivity of the few imposed on the rest. The only alternative is imposing a virtual objective standard on those wanting chaos or one man's virtual "objectivity". The result is the moral code I mentioned which is enforced on all equally, even the anarchists and tyrants, making it the only rational, universal, solution. It's either that, or imposed chaos by the very few on the many, making good order impossible except on the whim of a transient dictator.

 

[Augustus]

I sorta take it in that what we do that's harmful may affect the rest of our family and society, and that may go beyond just one generation.

I agree with this, it makes even more sense in the historical context.

Honour and reputation were very important in tribal societies and it could be not far off a death sentence to have yours tainted. Blood feuds continued as if people though you were a soft touch then they could exploit you at will. Female chastity was important as if it was questionable who fathered then you run into big problems in patrilineal tribal systems.

Many deals relied on some degree of trust; you had to trust that someone would let you cross their land without robbing you or that after you arranged to sell them some sheep they wouldn't just turn up with a small army instead.

If you robbed someone then others would no longer trust your tribe/family making it hard to live a normal life. This would continue to have effects long into the future:

"Don't trust Augustus, he killed my brother and stole his goats"
"There's Augustus' son, don't trust him. I bet the apple didn't fall too far from the tree."
"Don't make deals with him. He's Augustus' grandson; he's got bad blood running through his veins"
etc.

I'd characterize it as evil--not of God, but of the self-serving myth which the authors of the bible invented.

What if it was sound advice and an effective heuristic for deterrence of catastrophic behaviour in the ancient Middle East? Why would this make it evil? Do you think it is bad advice?

 

[Deeje]

I dont know if you answered correctly because the question was based on a what-if.

If John does not sin is he stil held accountable if his great grand parents sin?

Does he need to repent for sins he did not commit?

Carlita, I believe that you are beginning with a wrong premise.

There is inherited sin. The one spoken about in Rom 5:12:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned"

And there is the sin we commit by our own choice. You have to acknowledge the difference, because if you don't original sin makes no sense.

How did we inherit sin from Adam? We could not inherit perfection because Adam lost it for us before we were born. All he had to pass on was imperfection and its tendency to make wrong choices. It ends in death. All would be lost except Christ stepped in and paid for the sins of Adam's children with his sacrifice. Sin's wages is death, but Jesus paid them for us.

Since christians can control our sins, it is possible not to sin.

We can certainly control what we choose to do to an extent. We can choose not to sin deliberately but we can't always do that for a variety of reasons. We are not perfect and we make poor choices sometimes and pay the price. Along with a knowledge of evil came the desire in imperfection to do evil and to be selfish and self serving. We are sometimes swayed by emotions, or the persuasion of others, or peer pressure.

If christians do not sin, are christians accountable for our past family's sins? Do they repent for them?

How can you repent about something you didn't do? That is silly. You can only repent over sins you yourself commit.

This is asking abount inherited sin and its logic not the definition of sin and what it means in context.

You have to have the definition of sin to understand what it means. The sin we inherited through no fault on our part was paid for by Jesus. The sins we commit through errors in judgment and mistakes in our choices are still covered by Jesus as long as we are repentant. Two kinds of sin, both forgivable...one kind, the deliberate breaking of God's law unrepentantly...not forgivable.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I agree with this, it makes even more sense in the historical context.

Honour and reputation were very important in tribal societies and it could be not far off a death sentence to have yours tainted. Blood feuds continued as if people though you were a soft touch then they could exploit you at will. Female chastity was important as if it was questionable who fathered then you run into big problems in patrilineal tribal systems.

Many deals relied on some degree of trust; you had to trust that someone would let you cross their land without robbing you or that after you arranged to sell them some sheep they wouldn't just turn up with a small army instead.

Yes, but it is a matter of virtue to be trustworthy. It is not immoral to be untrustworthy, unless you use that trust to violate the rights of another to their life, liberty or property.

Carlita, I believe that you are beginning with a wrong premise.

There is inherited sin. The one spoken about in Rom 5:12:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Just because what some guy wrote got put in the Bible, doesn't make it right, Especially if that guy was Paul.

How did we inherit sin from Adam? We could not inherit perfection because Adam lost it for us before we were born. All he had to pass on was imperfection and its tendency to make wrong choices. It ends in death. All would be lost except Christ stepped in and paid for the sins of Adam's children with his sacrifice. Sin's wages is death, but Jesus paid them for us.

Adam didn't loose it for us, he was just the symbolic person that acquire full self-awareness, the inner voice that tells us right from wrong. We each make our own moral choices. If we didn't we wouldn't have free will and this life, this test, would be meaningless. Our choices wouldn't be our own.

We can certainly control what we choose to do to an extent. We can choose not to sin deliberately but we can't always do that for a variety of reasons. We are not perfect and we make poor choices sometimes and pay the price. Along with a knowledge of evil came the desire in imperfection to do evil and to be selfish and self serving. We are sometimes swayed by emotions, or the persuasion of others, or peer pressure.

None of those responses to temptation are dictated by our ancestors. Yes, family is among the influences we grow up under, along with genetics, but none of that is an imperative we can't overcome. For every pedophile you hear about, there are a hundred who overcome their evil tendencies.

How can you repent about something you didn't do? That is silly. You can only repent over sins you yourself commit.

Exactly, and the reason is that which you didn't do, that which was done my your ancestors, is not your sin, which is contra the OP.

You have to have the definition of sin to understand what it means. The sin we inherited through no fault on our part was paid for by Jesus. The sins we commit through errors in judgment and mistakes in our choices are still covered by Jesus as long as we are repentant. Two kinds of sin, both forgivable...one kind, the deliberate breaking of God's law unrepentantly...not forgivable.

No one, not even God itself, can die for a lack of repentance. And there can be no guilt or repentance for something you didn't do. You're straining very hard to justify the Christian dogma, born of Paul's Mithraic paganism and mysticism, that Jesus was a human sacrifice.