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

[ThePainefulTruth]

Well as you know, Jews approach the Bible through the lens of the Talmud, so that's not really a problem for us.

That doesn't change the relevant passage at all.

Not sure what this has to do with your OP.

God's visiting our ancestors guilt upon us, according to Exodus, still remains--which is the point of the OP.

 

[psychoslice]

We are not responsible for anyone sins, that is nothing but a childish belief system, nothing but to be laughed at.

 

[metis]

Not sure what that has to do with the issue. And for a biblical example of someone being perfect, Job springs to mind.

And exactly how did you conclude that Job was "perfect"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

It sounds fairly typical of the Old Testament God, not a pleasant character at all.

 

[Tumah]

That doesn't change the relevant passage at all.



God's visiting our ancestors guilt upon us, according to Exodus, still remains--which is the point of the OP.

in circles you're going

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

You forgot the part about those who express love for Him.

Does He, really? It didn't happen with King Hezekiah....he was approved by Jehovah, although Ahaz, Hezekiah's father, was wicked! Many other examples, in the Bible, disproves this.

Maybe it's the children who are "those who hate me".

 

[Sleeppy]

What is the truth? Isn't it evident?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

And exactly how did you conclude that Job was "perfect"?

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."-- Job1:1

It sounds fairly typical of the Old Testament God, not a pleasant character at all.

Fairly typical of an invented god, yes.

in circles you're going

Accusing the accuser eh?

What is the truth? Isn't it evident?

Truth is the most referred to concept but the most ignored subject in need of study....ever.

 

[Tumah]

Accusing the accuser eh?

Well, its just that, I've answered all your questions. But rather then rebut them, you're just starting the cycles of questions over again.
I understand that you're mass responding, so you're not really paying attention to the individual conversation flow between each person. But you can understand how that makes for poor debate quality, right?

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

Do we answer for them? Yes. We are them aren't we?

 

[Robert.Evans]

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."-- Job1:1



.

It doesn't mean perfect in the way we would think.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Another side-point: Doesn't the New Testament say that God is 'unchanging'? And does it also say that Jesus told people to honor the laws of the old testament?

I don't think so.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

@Tumah has answered this.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Do we answer for them? Yes. We are them aren't we?

Fortunately no, or we would be monkeys, or worse.

It doesn't mean perfect in the way we would think.

What then, in means "perfect" in some other way that fits with your theology? It's the old, When all else fails, putz with the definition ploy. In this case, God messed up when It used that word without qualifying it when inspiring the author of Job what to write. Either that or the Devil had one of his minions change God's Word later on.

 

[metis]

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."-- Job1:1

Here's from the JPS: Job1[1]: "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was whole-hearted and upright, and one that feared G-d, and shunned evil."

The Stone Edition Tanakh, which is the closest to the Hebrew, reads like this: "There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; that man was wholesome and upright, he feared God and shunned evil."

Job was never viewed in Judaism as being "perfect" as this was an attribute that only God has.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The JPS first edition says that he was "blameless and upright", where blameless would certainly indicate, at the very least, morally perfect.

Of course this all raises the question, in disputes or contradictions between editions and translations, which is the final authority. If the later ones are correct, or more correct, what does that mean about the previous/other erroneous ones, which were once considered divinely inspired and sanctioned. And what about translations to come.

 

[metis]

The JPS first edition says that he was "blameless and upright", where blameless would certainly indicate, at the very least, morally perfect.

No, it does not say "perfect", and I have never even read any Christian theologian that believes Job was without sin and, therefore, a "perfect" human.

Also, there long has been a question in Judaism whether the story of Job is a myth, which does not mean falsehood in this context, but refers to a narrative that is meant to be used as a teaching device. There's some very serious problems taking Job at the literal level, which has God gambling with Satan over whether Job can keep his faith but whereas some of his family is killed and then he has a serious infection that costs him his friends. Some might believe that God would do such a thing, but I certainly don't.

BTW, some historians believe that Job may be the oldest book in our canon.

 

[viole]

That would be because there are "why's" and "becauses" for everything. That is why people dedicate their lives to the study of such things. It's called medical science. There are a multitude of fields of science that study the "why's" and "becauses" of a whole range of subjects. You don't think we need them?

Why is there God?

If we are meant to die then why hasn't evolution given us what the animals have....no concept of their own death?

Natural trade-off. Either a simple brain, or a complex one able to introspect our own existence. The latter was more useful for our success and got selected. And it gave us spirituality to compensate the associated problems. Those things, including belief in god, are also naturally selected. Someone who believes these things can find purpose until it duplicates. And that was good enough. It worked nicely. At least, until now.

You do know that there is a distinct difference between immortality and everlasting life, don't you?

Yes. i also saw the Highlander (the movie),

Humans were never offered immortality...they were offered unending life in their mortal flesh if they just followed the instructions of their Maker. He had provided the means right there in the garden. This is something science has been working on since time immemorial...the search for the "Fountain of Youth" is legendary. People don't want to get old or sick or die....but once sin entered into the world through the disobedience of one man, that is all there was to look forward to. God provided a rescuer in the form of his son.

The fountain of youth can get you only so far until thermodynamical death. When that strikes, that's it. There is no known escape from the second principle.

Unless you know what God offered humankind in the beginning, his offering of immortal life in heaven to a chosen few, will mean very little.

I know what some humans wrote about God. And that is all you know, too. Pending additional, independent, evidence that the God of the Bible, or any god made up by man, exists.

Would they? Would you undergo an unfair trial that found you guilty of something you did not do knowing it carried the death penalty? Would you willingly submit to whipping with a flagellum, (a whip with fragments of bone) tearing your flesh off your body? Would you volunteer to have opposers spit in your face and force a thorny crown into your scalp? Weakened by all this you are then forced to carry an enormous beam of wood that was going to be used to execute you.
Would you like soldiers to hammer nails through the flesh on your hands and feet and hang you up so that you suffered for hours in agony? The only way to avoid suffocation was to push up with your feet to take a breath, but when they had enjoyed your suffering long enough, they came along and broke your legs so that you couldn't breathe anymore? This was a common form of Roman execution. At least for Jesus, they didn't have to break his legs....he had already died. The criminals hung alongside him had their legs broken.

You think all of that was a piece of cake because you had been promised a resurrection? Seriously?

Yes. Of course. It is like undergoing a very painful operation that you know will make you new. In this case, not only new but it will turn you into the Master of the Universe. Or a third thereof. De facto.

I can think of a couple of politicians who will be happy to suffer a few whipping and a horrible execution unjustly, if that leads to such a certain end result.

In Italy thay say: the last who laughes, laughes better.

So, no big deal, really. I find it puzzling that you consider it a sacrifice at all. I think that jumping into dangerous waters to save a child, without certainty to survive or magically resurrect, is vastly more admirable.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, it does not say "perfect", and I have never even read any Christian theologian that believes Job was without sin and, therefore, a "perfect" human.

And you're surprised? They exercise their selective interpretation the same as you do. What does "blameless"? Yet most Christian Bibles render it as "perfect" which is a fair translation or rendering of blameless. I guess this goes back to how many biblical translations can dance on the head of a pin.

Also, there long has been a question in Judaism whether the story of Job is a myth

Surprise again. Wouldn't the fact that it's in question indicate that neither position has divine backing, since if one was correct, it would be the only one, and obvious.

which does not mean falsehood in this context, but refers to a narrative that is meant to be used as a teaching device. There's some very serious problems taking Job at the literal level, which has God gambling with Satan over whether Job can keep his faith but whereas some of his family is killed and then he has a serious infection that costs him his friends. Some might believe that God would do such a thing, but I certainly don't.

BTW, some historians believe that Job may be the oldest book in our canon.

Job IS certainly, obviously, allegory, not literal--but if that isn't indicated in the text, it would imply some deceit on God's part, letting his mouthpieces claim it is literal. The punchline of Job is where God says, "where were you when I created the universe"; "It's none of your business why I do things" (paraphrased). But that leaves us with a totally irrational relationship with God, or inability to make sense of things because they don't fit with what we're told in the Bible.

The reason some (priest or scribe) wrote the Book of Job is because they were tired of answering all the time the questions about why evil is rewarded and the good caused to suffer--which is not what was promised for those who followed the law.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Why is there God?

That's the only "Why?" there's no answer to. And you wouldn't expect one if God always was, iow, is timeless.

If we are meant to die then why hasn't evolution given us what the animals have....no concept of their own death?

Natural trade-off. Either a simple brain, or a complex one able to introspect our own existence. The latter was more useful for our success and got selected. And it gave us spirituality to compensate the associated problems. Those things, including belief in god, are also naturally selected. Someone who believes these things can find purpose until it duplicates. And that was good enough. It worked nicely. At least, until now.

Because that comes with and defines full self-awareness, which is necessary for our moral free will because it enables our sense of right and wrong from that.











The fountain of youth can get you only so far until thermodynamical death. When that strikes, that's it. There is no known escape from the second principle.



I know what some humans wrote about God. And that is all you know, too. Pending additional, independent, evidence that the God of the Bible, or any god made up by man, exists.



Yes. Of course. It is like undergoing a very painful operation that you know will make you new. In this case, not only new but it will turn you into the Master of the Universe. Or a third thereof. De facto.

I can think of a couple of politicians who will be happy to suffer a few whipping and a horrible execution unjustly, if that leads to such a certain end result.

In Italy thay say: the last who laughes, laughes better.

So, no big deal, really. I find it puzzling that you consider it a sacrifice at all. I think that jumping into dangerous waters to save a child, without certainty to survive or magically resurrect, is vastly more admirable.

Ciao

- viole[/QUOTE]