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

[McBell]

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.

false dichotomy.

 

[Jainarayan]

Can this be interpreted any other way but that even the gr.- gr.- granchildren of a sinner are damned or punished for any of their thirty ancestors transgressions?

In the context of Heathenry, all our actions affect those who come after us as well as those around us. It's called wyrd. We don't believe in reward and punishment, or sin, but rather, cause and effect. It's not unlike karma, but on a grander scale. The things I do will positively or negatively affect others. The Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh calls it "dependent origination" (Sanskrit pratītyasamutpāda, which is clearly a mouthful) and "interbeing"... nothing exists in a vacuum. So yes, the actions of our ancestors can affect us.

 

[metis]

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

Generally speaking, correct.

 

[metis]

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.

Very well put, imo.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Ex. 20:5--I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

Can this be interpreted any other way but that even the gr.- gr.- granchildren of a sinner are damned or punished for any of their thirty ancestors transgressions? Or is this, as it appears, simply one of many manipulations to instill fear in one's congregants to toe the line of blind faith.

Why do people insist that all sin must have a mystical God hiding behind a wall waiting to pounce on us
at every possible opportunity.

Consider the Germans after ww1.

The ordinary earthly mistakes they made came back to haunt their descendants.

Even though my family never had anything to do with apartheid,
and in fact fought against it each and every generation,
I have to suffer all sorts of restrictions on my employment opportunities
due to my white skin.

Its not always a matter of who deserves what according to the great Karmic Accountant in the sky.

Its just a fact of life, that blacks suffered under apartheid because their ancestors attacked the Boers
at blood river. Its not desirable. And there is at least one verse in the Bible which rails against
people who misunderstood the verse and use it as reason to persecute the children of sinners.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Church no longer teaches original sin..
It teaches every one is only subject to their own sins.
When it come to absolution and forgiveness, How could anyone repent someone else's sin?

 

[Tumah]

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

Perhaps you should take a look at the verse again.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

false dichotomy.

False pronouncement.

In the context of Heathenry, all our actions affect those who come after us as well as those around us. It's called wyrd. We don't believe in reward and punishment, or sin, but rather, cause and effect. It's not unlike karma, but on a grander scale. The things I do will positively or negatively affect others. The Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh calls it "dependent origination" (Sanskrit pratītyasamutpāda, which is clearly a mouthful) and "interbeing"... nothing exists in a vacuum. So yes, the actions of our ancestors can affect us.

IOW, we're robots, unable to break the strings of cause and effect going back to forever. Everything was determined at the Planck Epoch.

Why do people insist that all sin must have a mystical God hiding behind a wall waiting to pounce on us
at every possible opportunity.

Since the position of the OP is the opposite of that, I guess ALL people don't.

Consider the Germans after ww1.

The ordinary earthly mistakes they made came back to haunt their descendants.

Even though my family never had anything to do with apartheid,
and in fact fought against it each and every generation,
I have to suffer all sorts of restrictions on my employment opportunities
due to my white skin.Its not always a matter of who deserves what according to the great Karmic Accountant in the sky.

Its just a fact of life, that blacks suffered under apartheid because their ancestors attacked the Boers
at blood river. Its not desirable. And there is at least one verse in the Bible which rails against
people who misunderstood the verse and use it as reason to persecute the children of sinners.

There's absolutely nothing in the OP or anywhere else that I've seen that has anything to do with life being fair.

The Church no longer teaches original sin..
It teaches every one is only subject to their own sins.

Not so sure that Original Sin has been put to rest, officially or otherwise. People still "think" that way because it's easier than actually thinking. And it's convenient.

When it come to absolution and forgiveness, How could anyone repent someone else's sin?

That's the point, no one, not even God can, and neither can the animals that were sacrificed for thousands of years.

Perhaps you should take a look at the verse again.

Been there, done that many times over. It's simple, ancient, dawn of civilization thinking--control via fear.

 

[Deeje]

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.

If you die, then you have sin (imperfection) to blame for that. The 'wages of sin is death'. In other words, sin is what produces aging, sickness and death. You know science can tell us "how" we die....but not "why". We have the capacity in our own genetic structure to replace every cell in our body in a perpetual process of regeneration...no one knows what throws it into reverse. If they could discover what causes aging and disease in a body designed to defeat both, we could all live forever. Trouble is, who would want to live forever in this world?

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

You can take it with whatever you like. Will browbeating people into submission make them live longer? Will it eliminate disease, disability and suffering?
If you choose not to believe in what the Bible says, that is entirely your prerogative. But I believe that it makes perfect sense.

(since others are responding in bold type, I am assuming that you are not shouting)

 

[psychoslice]

Of course were not responsible, that is just an old verse from a time when the so called god was a warmonger, and just to keep everyone frightened, of course he didn't exist.

 

[Tumah]

Been there, done that many times over. It's simple, ancient, dawn of civilization thinking--control via fear.

You're not even trying to put up a real argument. You make up your own verse and then complain it contradicts an actual verse. That's a pretty PainfulArgument.

 

[Deeje]

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?

The sin introduced and spread by Adam to all his offspring affects every human being on this planet. God can forgive only because Christ came and offered his life for Adam's children. In Israel, blood sacrifice was used to grant temporary forgiveness of sins.

Blood is the symbol of life, so God granted forgiveness on the basis of the blood offered. They had to make the offerings regularly because the law was not fulfilled with just the blood of animals, even though they were required to offer their best....Christ came to offer a permanent sacrifice so that blood would never have to be poured out again.

The blood of Christ satisfied the law. A life had to be offered for a life to balance the scales of justice. But not just any life....Adam lost a perfect sinless life, so only an equivalent life would cancel the debt. Until relatively recent decades the death penalty was passed on all those who took a life illegally. This was reflective of God's law. Justice was served.

Jesus sinless life was given in exchange for Adam's.

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.

The OP is mistaken. The Bible does not hold anyone responsible for what their parents or grandparents did unless they emulate them...and lets face it, many do. They inherit their religion, attitude and culture and never question what they do as to whether it's right or wrong, good or bad.

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.

Yes you are....but the sin in your flesh has been paid for by Jesus....that only leaves the sin you choose to carry out deliberately in spite of knowing better...which is NOT covered by the ransom sacrifice of Christ, unless there is genuine repentance.

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.

Actually God gave man a lot of freedom in the beginning. He assigned him certain roles and gave clear instructions to him, but I don't believe that God would ever have left humans to their own devices. He portrays himself as a Father figure to his human children...even to his angelic family, so abusing that freedom is what sent humanity off the rails. But the first rebel was not human. Free will is also the possession of God's spirit family....he now had rebellion in both realms, so an object lesson for both with eternal precedents to be set, was a master plan. Pure genius.

God implemented a way for sinful humans, now alienated from him through disobedience, to reconcile through a means that he himself provided. He didn't have to do this because as Creator, he could have just wiped out the rebels and given free will up as a bad job. He would have been entirely within his rights as sovereign to eliminate the rebels altogether and not bother with humanity ever again....but he didn't. So precious was free will, that he allowed all humans to exercise it even to their detriment to show them what happens when their own will is put before that of their Maker. Angels too got to see what happens when they rebel against God as well. It will end in permanent death for all who oppose his incoming Kingdom. (Dan 2:44)

The reward for faithfully enduring this exercise is everlasting life of the sort that Adam forfeited. Unending life in paradise with no evil to contend with....no sickness, aging or death and all humanity working together as caretakers of this planet. (Rev 21:1-5)

Sounds good to me.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You're not even trying to put up a real argument. You make up your own verse and then complain it contradicts an actual verse. That's a pretty PainfulArgument.

What did I make up?

The OP is mistaken. The Bible does not hold anyone responsible for what their parents or grandparents did unless they emulate them.

Then why do you say Jesus had to die for our sins if we aren't held responsible for them?

 

[Tumah]

What did I make up?

This.

God forgives for 2000 generations

As I said before: maybe you want to look at the Ex. 34:7 again.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If youdie then you have sin (imperfection) to blame for that. The 'wages of sin is death'. In other words, sin is what produces divisionsickness and death. You know science can tell us "how" we die....but not "why". We have the capacity in our own genetic structure to replace every cell in our body in a perpetual process of regeneration...no one knows what throws it into reverse. If they could discover what causes aging and disease in a body designed to defeat both, we could all live forever. Trouble is, who would want to live forever in this world?


You can take it with whatever you like. Will browbeating people into submission make them live longer? Will it eliminate disease, disability and suffering?
If you choose not to believe in what the Bible says, that is entirely your prerogative. But I believe that it makes perfect sense.

(since others are responding in bold type, I am assuming that you are not shouting)

I am afraid you are out of date on the science of cell division.
The "Hayflick limit" restricts the ability to divide and causes the cells to age and eventually stop as the telemores shortens with each division.

 

[Deeje]

The Bible does not hold anyone responsible for what their parents or grandparents did unless they emulate them.

Then why do you say Jesus had to die for our sins if we aren't held responsible for them?

If you read my post you will see that there are two kinds of sin...the one we are born with (physical imperfection leading to aging and death that we inherited from Adam)
and the one we commit deliberately. (the choice to sin....e.g. commit adultery, steal, murder)

Jesus came to release us from the first kind.....he didn't come so that people could sin on purpose.
If we have sinned, we must feel genuine regret and work to eliminate that practice from our lives.

 

[Deeje]

I am afraid you are out of date on the science of cell division.
The "Hayflick limit" restricts the ability to divide and causes the cells to age and eventually stop as the telemores shortens with each division.

That is a "how" not a "why". Theoretically, we should go on renewing our cells indefinitely, but no one knows why the "Hayflick limit" comes into play to shorten the telemores.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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.

Completely absurd. So if one of your great-grandfathers was charged with rape, found guilty and sentenced to 25+ years in prison you'd be perfectly okay with all his descendants (including you) being forced to serve the same sentence for that specific ancestor's crime?

That's what would happen if a nation's legal system reflected the barbaric Original Sin doctrine. Original Sin is not just; and it makes a mockery of the idea that the Christian god is a just god.

 

[Jedster]

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.

Indeed.
I once asked a Christian lady who was preaching inherited sin how she can believe that a new born baby could be in sin.
She told me that the sin is passed on to everyone by way of the sperm of Adam.

Go figure

 

[Augustus]

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.

You miss the point, in ancient tribal societies, being trustworthy or 'honorable' was closer to a matter of life or death than simply a 'virtue'.

The quote in the op is highlighting the long term consequences of damaging your reputation in societies such as these.