Blaming The Children For The Sins of Their Parents? Is That Justice?

[JayRob]

Is it a "just" thing for children to suffer thousands of years later because of the sins of their parents? Isn't that what the bible teaches? Is that justice and is it moral to do such a thing?
Why would it be just for person A to have to suffer for something person B did?

According to the bible, because of ONE man's sin, the WHOLE world has to suffer, nevermind the fact that 99.999999 of humanity had nothing to do with the sin in the first place. How am I deemed to be born in sin when I've never sinned?
Why must I have to earn my way out of a hole dug by someone else?

 

[dacontinent]

...Why must I have to earn my way out of a hole dug by someone else?

You can't. None of us can. We need a Savior. One has been provided. We either choose to accept His payment for sin or we refuse. It is really that simple.

...and, NO, that is not what the Bible teaches.

 

[JayRob]

This means that humanity has been set up to depend on this savior eventhough at birth, none of us have sinned. Imagine if our justice system was based on the bible's theory of justice. If John sins, I'll blame Jimmy and put Jimmy in jail instead of John. In short, innocent newborn babies are being blamed for something Adam did. That's not justice at all.

ONLY in religion can something so nonsensical be allowed to be pawned off as truth and justice.

 

[JayRob]

You can't. None of us can. We need a Savior. One has been provided. We either choose to accept His payment for sin or we refuse. It is really that simple.

...and, NO, that is not what the Bible teaches.

So you skipped over the first part because you know it's true?

If there was no way one could earn salvation, there'd be no need for humans to be commanded to follow the commandments.

 

[dacontinent]

This means that humanity has been set up to depend on this savior eventhough at birth, none of us have sinned. Imagine if our justice system was based on the bible's theory of justice. If John sins, I'll blame Jimmy and put Jimmy in jail instead of John. In short, innocent newborn babies are being blamed for something Adam did. That's not justice at all.

ONLY in religion can something so nonsensical be allowed to be pawned off as truth and justice.

Inaccurate. According to the scriptures, man was setup to be absolutely successful but he screwed-up of his own volition. Justice would have been to simply annihilate mankind and start over. God provided a Savior instead in order to give mercy and grace instead of justice.

Innocent babies are not blamed for what Adam did. They grow up and repeat what Adam did, finding themselves with the same choice: accept or reject the Savior.

 

[dacontinent]

So you skipped over the first part because you know it's true?

If there was no way one could earn salvation, there'd be no need for humans to be commanded to follow the commandments.

I skipped the first part because it is wrong. I am skipping the above statement for the same reason.

 

[JayRob]

Inaccurate. According to the scriptures, man was setup to be absolutely successful but he screwed-up of his own volition.

Here we go again folks. Dacon can be SO neutral and fair when it comes to band talk, but that neutral switch is magically turned off when it comes to being neutral about the bible.

If man was "set up" to be absolutely successful, why on earth would a "loving" god put a man, just created a couple of days ago, up against the most powerful being on earth at that time (according to the bible), named Lucifer who was full of wisdom, knowledge and beauty? Adam didn't stand a chance. This Lucifer character had existed (according to the bible) for thousands of years, but Adam was only a few days from being created. He didn't stand a chance, and Eve certainly didn't. They should've been expected to fail by any logically thinking person with a brain, but not the one in the bible who let Lucifer in to tempt them.
In short, Adam and Eve were set up to fail.

Justice would have been to simply annihilate mankind and start over. God provided a Savior instead in order to give mercy and grace instead of justice.

Justice would've been to not let Adam be tempted in the first place by such a powerful being. Justice would've been to allow Adam to have a full measure of the holy spirit like, (according to the bible), Jesus had when he was tempted. Adam wasn't given that opportunity. If Adam had had the full measure of the holy spirit, perhaps he wouldn't have sinned in the first place.
In addition to the above, if there would've been no temptation, there would've been no sin.

Innocent babies are not blamed for what Adam did. They grow up and repeat what Adam did, finding themselves with the same choice: accept or reject the Savior.

Why does the bible claim that humans are born in sin if they're not being blamed?
Why did innocent babies have to die in the flood if they weren't blamed?
Why does the biblical god blame the children for the sins of their fathers?
Why aren't humans born with the full measure of the holy spirit like the Jesus character was born with? Having the full measure of the holy spirit is a tremendously huge advantage than not having it at all. That's not justice either and it's surely not fair.

It's really amazing that you can be so fair in discussing other subjects, but that sense of fairness and logical thinking goes up in smoke when it comes to the bible. Interesting indeed.

 

[JayRob]

I skipped the first part because it is wrong. I am skipping the above statement for the same reason.

You skipped over the first part because you had no defense against it that could stand. The sins of the fathers were and ARE being blamed on the children as stated in your own bible. Here are verses to prove it:

Jeremiah 31:29-30: “In those days people will no longer say,‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

Lam 5:7 Our fathers have sinned, [and are] not; and we have borne their iniquities.

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

The above verses clearly show that the Old Testament god (who is Jesus Christ), punished the children for the evil works of their fathers. It's a good thing our justice system doesn't work like this.

 

[dacontinent]

Here we go again folks. Dacon can be SO neutral and fair when it comes to band talk, but that neutral switch is magically turned off when it comes to being neutral about the bible.

I am neither neutral nor "fair" about either. My answers are very direct about either.

If man was "set up" to be absolutely successful, why on earth would a "loving" god put a man, just created a couple of days ago, up against the most powerful being on earth at that time (according to the bible), named Lucifer who was full of wisdom, knowledge and beauty? Adam didn't stand a chance. This Lucifer character had existed (according to the bible) for thousands of years, but Adam was only a few days from being created. He didn't stand a chance, and Eve certainly didn't. They should've been expected to fail by any logically thinking person with a brain, but not the one in the bible who let Lucifer in to tempt them.
In short, Adam and Eve were set up to fail.

Justice would've been to not let Adam be tempted in the first place by such a powerful being. Justice would've been to allow Adam to have a full measure of the holy spirit like, (according to the bible), Jesus had when he was tempted. Adam wasn't given that opportunity. If Adam had had the full measure of the holy spirit, perhaps he wouldn't have sinned in the first place.
In addition to the above, if there would've been no temptation, there would've been no sin.

All of this was covered in a recent thread. My position has not changed. Just go back and read what I wrote before.

Why does the bible claim that humans are born in sin if they're not being blamed?
Why did innocent babies have to die in the flood if they weren't blamed?
Why does the biblical god blame the children for the sins of their fathers?
Why aren't humans born with the full measure of the holy spirit like the Jesus character was born with? Having the full measure of the holy spirit is a tremendously huge advantage than not having it at all. That's not justice either and it's surely not fair.

Original sin.
Their parents made bad decisions.
It does not.
Because they have human fathers in a fallen world: original sin again.
It sure is. Furthermore, it is too bad Adam forfeited holiness.

It's really amazing that you can be so fair in discussing other subjects, but that sense of fairness and logical thinking goes up in smoke when it comes to the bible. Interesting indeed.

The Bible is not purely logical. You know that already. Fair is surely one of the most misused words in the English language.

 

[dacontinent]

You skipped over the first part because you had no defense against it that could stand. The sins of the fathers were and ARE being blamed on the children as stated in your own bible. Here are verses to prove it:

Jeremiah 31:29-30: “In those days people will no longer say,‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.
...
Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

National sin yields national results, as was promised in Exodus and repeated in Numbers and Deuteronomy. You call this unfair.

Lam 5:7 Our fathers have sinned, [and are] not; and we have borne their iniquities.

Note that this is a LAMENT for enduring exactly what ISRAEL was told would happen for its disobedience. It did not happen to mankind but it did to the lineage of Israel.

The above verses clearly show that the Old Testament god (who is Jesus Christ), punished the children for the evil works of their fathers. It's a good thing our justice system doesn't work like this.

The above verses clearly show that God is true to His Word. He told them what would happen if they disobeyed and they chose to disobey anyway. Fair.

 

[JayRob]

I am neither neutral nor "fair" about either. My answers are very direct about either.

When it comes to band talk, you're far more balanced and neutral (not taking sides), but when it comes to the bible, it's a completely different story. Logic seems to be discarded like pieces of paper in a trash compactor.

All of this was covered in a recent thread. My position has not changed. Just go back and read what I wrote before.

Your position hinted that Adam had a holy spirit, but nowhere in the Old Testament does it say this. If having a full measure of the holy spirit was so important to overcoming the devil/Lucifer, why wasn't Adam granted the same advantage that Jesus had? Was it fair to throw Adam out there to the wolf with no "helper", while granting the Jesus figure the "full measure" of the power from on high?

Original sin.

The "original" sin by Adam, had nothing to do with you or me, so why should you or I suffer for something done by another human being?
If blaming the children shows complete justice and mercy, why does the Old Testament god promise to disband such a practice in the future? Why not continue the practice if it's such a good and decent practice?

Their parents made bad decisions.

So, should I go to jail for the sins of my father? That's the underlying principle that's being shown.

It does not.

The bible does blame the sins of the parents on the children, otherwise the children wouldn't be the ones suffering, neither would humans (according to the bible) be suffering due to Adam's sin.

Because they have human fathers in a fallen world: original sin again.

Adam didn't have sin and there was no "fallen world", before the original sin, but he didn't receive the full measure of the holy spirit as an advantage to help him overcome satan, so this makes your theory null and void.

It sure is. Furthermore, it is too bad Adam forfeited holiness.

If you admit that having the full measure of the holy spirit was an advantage, why wasn't Adam granted that opportunity to have it? Your answer in the affirmative, in and of itself condemns the very person responsible for not granting him that advantage, which is the Old Testament god of the bible.
Simply put, Adam should've been given the necessary support he needed, but he wasn't.

The Bible is not purely logical. You know that already.

Wow, finally we can agree on something.

Fair is surely one of the most misused words in the English language

Whether the term "fair" is misused or not, the fact of the matter is that he wasn't given the SAME kind of support as was the second Adam, especially due to the seriousness of the temptation. This was totally unfair, unjust, illogical, deceptive, a setup and useless. It was useless because the Old Testament god claims that he knew in advance that Adam would fail and he KNEW why Adam would fail. It was because he didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit like the Jesus character was said to have. If one is going to be totally honest about the situation, he must address this point and answer the question as to why Adam wasn't granted the same spiritual support said to have been given to the Jesus character.
The first Adam was at a severe disadvantage in comparison to the second Adam, and it showed in the decisions he made.

 

[JayRob]

National sin yields national results, as was promised in Exodus and repeated in Numbers and Deuteronomy. You call this unfair.

So, according to your principle, it's okay to arrest your entire family for the sins of ONE of your family members? You call that fair?
Why don't you make your family "god or savior", since this is the same exact charge that's laid at the feet of Jesus. If sins of humanity are supposed to be laid at his feet, why are humans beings to suffer for sins they had nothing to do with?
This is no more than another form of vicarious liability (putting one's sins on another), but from an Old Testament point of view. Only in religion folks, only in religion. LOL!!

Note that this is a LAMENT for enduring exactly what ISRAEL was told would happen for its disobedience. It did not happen to mankind but it did to the lineage of Israel.

Predictions can be made until one is blue in the face, but are those predictions based on righteous and fair judgement? Blaming unborn children for the sins of their fathers is nowhere near being just and merciful. As a matter of fact, it's the total opposite.
What if our justice system mandated that the sons be executed for the misdeeds of their father? How many mothers would agree to that?

The above verses clearly show that God is true to His Word. He told them what would happen if they disobeyed and they chose to disobey anyway. Fair.

So because the Old Testament god kept his promise to condemn innocent people, not because of their own sins, but because of the sins of their parents, that's supposed to exonerate him from being a tyrannical and unjust god? Vicarious liability being practiced in the Old Testament hundreds of years before Jesus.

Fact of the matter is that the Old Testament god (according to the bible), had the power and authority to issue out justice to the sinners themselves, but instead of doing that, he placed the punishment on the their children. That alone is a shameful injustice unto itself because the wrong party is being punished.

 

[dacontinent]

When it comes to band talk, you're far more balanced and neutral (not taking sides), but when it comes to the bible, it's a completely different story. Logic seems to be discarded like pieces of paper in a trash compactor.

The story of band is still being written while the story of the Bible is not: abstract vs. absolute. They are completely different stories requiring completely different positions.

Your position hinted that Adam had a holy spirit, but nowhere in the Old Testament does it say this. If having a full measure of the holy spirit was so important to overcoming the devil/Lucifer, why wasn't Adam granted the same advantage that Jesus had? Was it fair to throw Adam out there to the wolf with no "helper", while granting the Jesus figure the "full measure" of the power from on high?
...
Adam didn't have sin and there was no "fallen world", before the original sin, but he didn't receive the full measure of the holy spirit as an advantage to help him overcome satan, so this makes your theory null and void.
...
If you admit that having the full measure of the holy spirit was an advantage, why wasn't Adam granted that opportunity to have it? Your answer in the affirmative, in and of itself condemns the very person responsible for not granting him that advantage, which is the Old Testament god of the bible.
Simply put, Adam should've been given the necessary support he needed, but he wasn't.
...
Whether the term "fair" is misused or not, the fact of the matter is that he wasn't given the SAME kind of support as was the second Adam, especially due to the seriousness of the temptation. This was totally unfair, unjust, illogical, deceptive, a setup and useless. It was useless because the Old Testament god claims that he knew in advance that Adam would fail and he KNEW why Adam would fail. It was because he didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit like the Jesus character was said to have. If one is going to be totally honest about the situation, he must address this point and answer the question as to why Adam wasn't granted the same spiritual support said to have been given to the Jesus character.
The first Adam was at a severe disadvantage in comparison to the second Adam, and it showed in the decisions he made.

This has already been covered in the previous thread. All you have to do is go back and read it.

The "original" sin by Adam, had nothing to do with you or me, so why should you or I suffer for something done by another human being?
If blaming the children shows complete justice and mercy, why does the Old Testament god promise to disband such a practice in the future? Why not continue the practice if it's such a good and decent practice?

We suffer because of Adam's sin: loss of dominion. The obvious answer to your question is that our Savior frees us from the deficit by restoring us to dominion. Again, read the prior thread.

So, should I go to jail for the sins of my father? That's the underlying principle that's being shown.

You should not go to jail for the sins of your father. However, you have been adversely affected by them.

The bible does blame the sins of the parents on the children, otherwise the children wouldn't be the ones suffering, neither would humans (according to the bible) be suffering due to Adam's sin.

The parents are blamed for their own sin. That sin affects not only the parents but those that follow them. Dominion on Earth was surrendered to Satan. Until he is turned out of the Earth we will be in a battle for this fallen world.

 

[dacontinent]

So, according to your principle, it's okay to arrest your entire family for the sins of ONE of your family members? You call that fair?
Why don't you make your family "god or savior", since this is the same exact charge that's laid at the feet of Jesus. If sins of humanity are supposed to be laid at his feet, why are humans beings to suffer for sins they had nothing to do with?
This is no more than another form of vicarious liability (putting one's sins on another), but from an Old Testament point of view. Only in religion folks, only in religion. LOL!!

No, that would not be okay for family members that were not involved in the crimes HERE IN THE USA. In other countries where the laws are different...FAIR??? That is a totally different concept.

It seems that you have a problem with the concept of original sin. I hope that changes for you.

Predictions can be made until one is blue in the face, but are those predictions based on righteous and fair judgement? Blaming unborn children for the sins of their fathers is nowhere near being just and merciful. As a matter of fact, it's the total opposite.
What if our justice system mandated that the sons be executed for the misdeeds of their father? How many mothers would agree to that?

Read the other thread for an understanding of justification. As for our justice system and such a mandate, there would be riots, rebellion, and anarchy because of the change. Just look at totalitarian efforts in third world countries as examples.

So because the Old Testament god kept his promise to condemn innocent people, not because of their own sins, but because of the sins of their parents, that's supposed to exonerate him from being a tyrannical and unjust god? Vicarious liability being practiced in the Old Testament hundreds of years before Jesus.

Fact of the matter is that the Old Testament god (according to the bible), had the power and authority to issue out justice to the sinners themselves, but instead of doing that, he placed the punishment on the their children. That alone is a shameful injustice unto itself because the wrong party is being punished.

The parents placed the consequences on the children through their own misdeeds. The judgements and consequences were established before the sin. We had true freedom of choice to obey or disobey: trusting what God says is what faith is.

 

[JayRob]

The story of band is still being written while the story of the Bible is not: abstract vs. absolute. They are completely different stories requiring completely different positions.

So personal opinion on bands require honesty and integrity, while discussing the bible doesn't? Wow!!

This has already been covered in the previous thread. All you have to do is go back and read it.

I know it's been covered, but the fact that Adam didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit was never shown to be fact in any of your posts.
In spite of this being one of the most important subjects in the entire bible, preachers don't want to touch this subject with a ten foot pole. I understand why.
The first Adam was setup to fail, while the second Adam was setup to succeed. There's no other way around it.

We suffer because of Adam's sin: loss of dominion. The obvious answer to your question is that our Savior frees us from the deficit by restoring us to dominion. Again, read the prior thread.

Still blaming the victims I see.
If one tells a five year old HOW to lift a hundred pounds and then demand that he do so or suffer the consequences, that's an outright foolishness, illogical and unsound order. The same principle applies to Adam and Eve.
Both were put up against the most powerful being ever created, commanded to overcome him or suffer the consequences.
What did they have as a defense? Only mere instructions by their creator and nothing else, just like the five year old.
According to the bible, they failed, now they're suffering. Nevermind the injustices in the story. That's not to be discussed.

You should not go to jail for the sins of your father. However, you have been adversely affected by them.

Your response is quite telling indeed. Then why is this principle even in the bible to begin with if one shouldn't suffer for the sins of his parents? Drowing every human being, except eight, is punishing children for the sins of their parents.
The sins of the parents may affect their child's behavior, but there's still no justification for children intentionally being blamed for the sins of their parents.

The parents are blamed for their own sin.

If that was the case, why did the Old Testament god order that children die because of their parent's sins?

That sin affects not only the parents but those that follow them.

Each human should've been judged on his/her own merits. This was not done in the Old Testament. The old adage of blaming everybody for the sins of one person is a consistent principle taught in the bible. There's no justice to it, there's no fairness to it and there's certainly no logic to it.

Dominion on Earth was surrendered to Satan. Until he is turned out of the Earth we will be in a battle for this fallen world.

Before the conflict between Adam and satan had begun, it was already over. The Old Testament god had known before the foundation of the world that Adam would fail. How did he know? Because he knew Adam didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit nor other resources that was granted the second Adam, to help him against such a powerful force. In short, Adam was being played.

 

[JayRob]

No, that would not be okay for family members that were not involved in the crimes HERE IN THE USA. In other countries where the laws are different...FAIR??? That is a totally different concept.

It seems that you have a problem with the concept of original sin. I hope that changes for you.

No, I have a problem with folks ignoring the obvious merely to save face for the teachings of their god. Anyone who teaches that one should suffer because of the sins of another can in no way justify such a principle. You're having a difficult time trying to explain it away.

Read the other thread for an understanding of justification. As for our justice system and such a mandate, there would be riots, rebellion, and anarchy because of the change. Just look at totalitarian efforts in third world countries as examples.

Again you avoid addressing the principle of vicarious liability. The fact that the average person in the USA would riot if our justice system took on such principles found in the bible is evident that our system in this nation is far more sound and just than the system taught by the Old Testament god.
It's refreshing that you agree that punishing Johnny for something Jim did is neither honest nor sound.

The parents placed the consequences on the children through their own misdeeds.

Again, blaming the victim. Will it ever end? You mean to tell me that an all powerful being, an all-knowing being didn't have the ability or intelligence to appropriately distribute judgement on an individual basis without including innocent others? That's exactly what you seem to be saying.

The judgements and consequences were established before the sin.

This makes it even worse because whomever established such judgements and consequences had time to think them out before making it law. How tyrannical and unjust is that, to require beforehand that innocent children or innocent parties suffer for something they had nothing to do with?

We had true freedom of choice to obey or disobey:

Freedom of choice by way of death? Obey or die in an eternal hell fire? Is that real freedom? Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

trusting what God says is what faith is.

I would dare to bet that for the average logically thinking person, it would be quite difficult to trust a person who blames and punishes innocent children on behalf of sinning parents. Another Old Testament form of vicarious liability.

 

[dacontinent]

So personal opinion on bands require honesty and integrity, while discussing the bible doesn't? Wow!!

No. That's no the point of the response at all and you know it. It is comments like this that bring your integrity into question.

The point that I made is that the Bible is a finished work. It is not up for modification. Either we believe it or we don't, but it won't be changing. Bands, music, ... all of the arts are in a constant state of flux and can go into a myriad of directions.

I know it's been covered, but the fact that Adam didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit was never shown to be fact in any of your posts.
In spite of this being one of the most important subjects in the entire bible, preachers don't want to touch this subject with a ten foot pole. I understand why.
The first Adam was setup to fail, while the second Adam was setup to succeed. There's no other way around it.

This has been addressed directly by me in the other thread. Apparently you need to read more closely.

Still blaming the victims I see.
If one tells a five year old HOW to lift a hundred pounds and then demand that he do so or suffer the consequences, that's an outright foolishness, illogical and unsound order. The same principle applies to Adam and Eve.
Both were put up against the most powerful being ever created, commanded to overcome him or suffer the consequences.
What did they have as a defense? Only mere instructions by their creator and nothing else, just like the five year old.
According to the bible, they failed, now they're suffering. Nevermind the injustices in the story. That's not to be discussed.

Already discussed in the other thread. Just read.

Your response is quite telling indeed. Then why is this principle even in the bible to begin with if one shouldn't suffer for the sins of his parents? Drowing every human being, except eight, is punishing children for the sins of their parents.
The sins of the parents may affect their child's behavior, but there's still no justification for children intentionally being blamed for the sins of their parents.

Just read the other thread.

If that was the case, why did the Old Testament god order that children die because of their parent's sins?

Because of their disobedience and irreverence. Read the other thread.

Each human should've been judged on his/her own merits. This was not done in the Old Testament. The old adage of blaming everybody for the sins of one person is a consistent principle taught in the bible. There's no justice to it, there's no fairness to it and there's certainly no logic to it.

I have never heard such an adage. Please help me with that. In the meantime, each human is already set to be judged on his own merits. The greatness is that you and I are not the Judge.

Before the conflict between Adam and satan had begun, it was already over. The Old Testament god had known before the foundation of the world that Adam would fail. How did he know? Because he knew Adam didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit nor other resources that was granted the second Adam, to help him against such a powerful force. In short, Adam was being played.

He knew because He is God, knowing the ending from the beginning. Read the thread. Let's not waste space on the hard drive.

 

[dacontinent]

No, I have a problem with folks ignoring the obvious merely to save face for the teachings of their god. Anyone who teaches that one should suffer because of the sins of another can in no way justify such a principle. You're having a difficult time trying to explain it away.

It is Christ who justified me; the converse will never be. His judgement is absolute and beyond yours or my ability to reason. You don't have to like or agree with it. See vicarious liability below.

Again you avoid addressing the principle of vicarious liability. The fact that the average person in the USA would riot if our justice system took on such principles found in the bible is evident that our system in this nation is far more sound and just than the system taught by the Old Testament god.
It's refreshing that you agree that punishing Johnny for something Jim did is neither honest nor sound.

Vicarious liability is no different that co-signing a debt. Jesus did it knowing that we could not possibly make the payment.

Remember that my context for Johnny and Jim was national law.

Again, blaming the victim. Will it ever end? You mean to tell me that an all powerful being, an all-knowing being didn't have the ability or intelligence to appropriately distribute judgement on an individual basis without including innocent others? That's exactly what you seem to be saying.

Read the other thread. I have nothing to repeat here.

This makes it even worse because whomever established such judgements and consequences had time to think them out before making it law. How tyrannical and unjust is that, to require beforehand that innocent children or innocent parties suffer for something they had nothing to do with?

Read the other thread. Already discussed.

Freedom of choice by way of death? Obey or die in an eternal hell fire? Is that real freedom? Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

Life and death are the ultimate choices. Would you rather the choice of you living or dying be left to me?

I would dare to bet that for the average logically thinking person, it would be quite difficult to trust a person who blames and punishes innocent children on behalf of sinning parents. Another Old Testament form of vicarious liability.

Average logically-thinking person ... hmm ... If that is all they are capable of being, then they should simply read the writings of JayRob and skip the Bible altogether. Those concepts of grace, justification, substitutionary atonement, vicarious liability, and such would just tie them up in knots and lead to them asking the same questions repeatedly.

 

[JayRob]

No. That's no the point of the response at all and you know it. It is comments like this that bring your integrity into question.

Complimenting you about being honest and fair about different bands brings my integrity into question? Display the same caliber of neutrality and unbiased slants when it comes to the bible would be the right thing to do. Take that honesty and fairness and transfer it to the subject of religion would be the right thing to do.

The point that I made is that the Bible is a finished work. It is not up for modification. Either we believe it or we don't, but it won't be changing. Bands, music, ... all of the arts are in a constant state of flux and can go into a myriad of directions.

People modify the bible every day and go in different directions. They give different meanings on various subjects everyday. Why else would there be 31,000 different denominations in one religion? All of those denominations are based on the bible.

This has been addressed directly by me in the other thread. Apparently you need to read more closely.

But not one time did you show that Adam had the holy spirit. Avoiding the topic is a good way of saying that you don't know without actually having to say it. That's what some folks are good at doing.

Already discussed in the other thread. Just read.

In other words, you don't want no parts of this discussion that clearly show how unjust the bible is when it condemns innocent children to death for the sins of their parents. I understand if you don't want to touch that subject. Many don't.

Just read the other thread.

You just admitted that it's not fair to blame children for the sins of their parents, but you fail to admit this when it comes to children being punished in the bible because of the sins of their parents.
This is what I was referring to when I spoke about bias when it comes to the bible.

Because of their disobedience and irreverence. Read the other thread.

But you just stated that it's wrong for children to suffer for something someone else did, but since it's in the bible, you want to recuse yourself from discussing it. Well, at least you admitted that it is wrong for children to suffer for the sins of their parents. I guess that's the most I can expect from someone who seems to be reluctant to admit that some things in the bible just don't add up.

I have never heard such an adage. Please help me with that.

Eventhough I thoroughly discussed this in a previous thread, unlike some, I don't mind doing it again.
You've never heard of the adage about the masses being blamed for the sins of one person? Try reading about Adam. According to the bible, all of humanity is suffering because of HIS sins. Nevermind the fact that we weren't around and we didn't have a choice in the matter. Nevermind the fact that we didn't tell Adam to sin. According to the bible, he did it of his own accord, nevertheless, the Old Testament god lumps me in with Adam's sin. That's the height of injustice and unfairness to the highest degree.

In the meantime, each human is already set to be judged on his own merits.

If humans are being judged on their individual merits, why the following verse? Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

This verse show that humans are not being totally judged individually. You keep raising and lowering the bar so it can fit with scripture, but all you're doing is contradicting yourself more and more.

The greatness is that you and I are not the Judge.

So the OT god is great eventhough he blames innocent children for their parents sins, then turns around and kills them in the process? If you consider that as being a product of a great judge, then by default, you must include Hitler and Stalin in that number.

He knew because He is God, knowing the ending from the beginning. Read the thread. Let's not waste space on the hard drive.

The OT god KNEW Adam would fail, yet he put nothing in place to prevent it? Like I stated earlier, he toyed with Adam like a puppet, while all the time KNOWING that he would fail. Adam being set up to fail is as clear as day.
After toying with him, he PUNISHED and banished him from the garden for doing something he already KNEW he was going to do. Nevermind the fact that Adam was already at a severe disadvantage when it came to cunning intelligence. He didn't stand a chance.
I wonder how the Jesus character would've fared if he didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit. Thank goodness, such nonsense is fictional. If not, it would be the height of embarassing injustice.

 

[JayRob]

It is Christ who justified me; the converse will never be. His judgement is absolute and beyond yours or my ability to reason. You don't have to like or agree with it. See vicarious liability below.

Here we go again. Use the emergency excuse button of "we don't understand, but god knows best" excuse. It never fails. No matter how illogical, tyrannical and unjust, it seems that in the eyes of some, the OT god can do no wrong. Nevermind the genocides, slavery, killing of innocent children, babies and women. Nevermind the sanctioned raping of captured women, nevermind the sanctioning of laws that a rape victim can be forced to marry her rapist; nevermind the fact that thousands of innocent babies were drowned in the flood eventhough they had nothing to do with sinning. The list of atrocities and evils go on and on and on, but it doesn't seem to matter to some. For the sake of their god, anything goes.

Vicarious liability is no different that co-signing a debt. Jesus did it knowing that we could not possibly make the payment.

If he knew that the OT babies and children didn't have a debt to begin with, why kill them off?
Besides, I didn't ask the Jesus character to die. I didn't take part in putting a stake in his side. I didn't take part in preventing Adam from defeating satan. According to the bible, the Jesus character concocted all of this on his own, yet blames me for his death? If anything, the first Adam has a right to blame him because he was played like a puppet and was made to fail.

Remember that my context for Johnny and Jim was national law.

This had nothing to do with a national law because it occurred long before the Israelites were formed as a nation. It happened during the flood and before the flood.

Read the other thread. I have nothing to repeat here.

In other words, you have no rebuttal relating to the fact that the OT god sat there and watched Adam fail?

Read the other thread. Already discussed.

Another copout and counting. I can't find that discussion anywhere.

Life and death are the ultimate choices. Would you rather the choice of you living or dying be left to me?

I'd rather the choice of life and death be left up to someone who doesn't have the propensity to blame the innocent on behalf of the guilty. If that would be you, then at least humans would stand a better chance of having justice meted out fairly and justly.

Average logically-thinking person ... hmm ... If that is all they are capable of being, then they should simply read the writings of JayRob and skip the Bible altogether. Those concepts of grace, justification, substitutionary atonement, vicarious liability, and such would just tie them up in knots and lead to them asking the same questions repeatedly.

It's amazing that you hesitate to criticize the words of the bible when it comes to the principle of vicarious liability, but when it comes to the laws of this nation, you admit that such a principle would not be a good thing at all for this nation.
This is a textbook definition of sadomasochism, learning to fear the one you love. Perhaps this is why some hesitate to criticize obvious injustices in the bible due to learned fear of what they THINK might happen to them if they did. Thankfully, I'm no longer under such mind-controlled fear and terror.

 

[jsupop33]

Sometimes, I just think Jayrob likes to argue.

 

[JayRob]

Sometimes, I just think Jayrob likes to argue.

When one is humbly confident in what he's talking about, it's not agruing, it's debating. I'm sure they taught this in college. On this forum, it seems to have become a lost art. I wonder why.

By the way, didn't the biblical character named Paul consistently argue/debate in the public square night and day about his new found religion called Christianity? If I'm not mistaken, I think he did.

 

[dacontinent]

Sometimes, I just think Jayrob likes to argue.

Even Jayrob ^^^^ agrees with you and me on that matter.

 

[dacontinent]

Complimenting you about being honest and fair about different bands brings my integrity into question? Display the same caliber of neutrality and unbiased slants when it comes to the bible would be the right thing to do. Take that honesty and fairness and transfer it to the subject of religion would be the right thing to do.

Because of your cynicism what you pose as a compliment brings your integrity into question. I am very biased about bands and very biased about the Bible. I make no apologies for either.

People modify the bible every day and go in different directions. They give different meanings on various subjects everyday. Why else would there be 31,000 different denominations in one religion? All of those denominations are based on the bible.

Really? The King James has been the same for the last 400 years. The Pentatuch the same for 6000 years. You argument here is a bit askew.

But not one time did you show that Adam had the holy spirit. Avoiding the topic is a good way of saying that you don't know without actually having to say it. That's what some folks are good at doing.

You seem to be losing track of your arguments. I said that Adam DID NOT have the Holy Spirit but that his spirit was holy and you have argued that it was unfair. Go back and read the other thread so you can make up your mind. When you do, go back and read the other thread again because my reponses will not change.

In other words, you don't want no parts of this discussion that clearly show how unjust the bible is when it condemns innocent children to death for the sins of their parents. I understand if you don't want to touch that subject. Many don't.

I do not want to waste storage pouring over the same issues that we have already discussed. Perhaps you intended this for someone else who did not participate in that discussion and I should simply bow out since I really don't have anything new to contribute.

You just admitted that it's not fair to blame children for the sins of their parents, but you fail to admit this when it comes to children being punished in the bible because of the sins of their parents.
This is what I was referring to when I spoke about bias when it comes to the bible.

This is clearly only my opinion, but I think that you have confused blame and suffering. So, I will ask this question: Will you provide even one verse of scripture where children are BLAMED for the sins of their parents?

But you just stated that it's wrong for children to suffer for something someone else did, but since it's in the bible, you want to recuse yourself from discussing it. Well, at least you admitted that it is wrong for children to suffer for the sins of their parents. I guess that's the most I can expect from someone who seems to be reluctant to admit that some things in the bible just don't add up.

I never said that it is wrong for children to suffer for something someone else did. In fact I said that children will be adversely affected by the sins of their parents. We are experiencing that right now in the USA.

Eventhough I thoroughly discussed this in a previous thread, unlike some, I don't mind doing it again.
You've never heard of the adage about the masses being blamed for the sins of one person? Try reading about Adam. According to the bible, all of humanity is suffering because of HIS sins. Nevermind the fact that we weren't around and we didn't have a choice in the matter. Nevermind the fact that we didn't tell Adam to sin. According to the bible, he did it of his own accord, nevertheless, the Old Testament god lumps me in with Adam's sin. That's the height of injustice and unfairness to the highest degree.

No. I have never heard of such an adage and you have not presented it yet. An adage is a metaphorical statement like "the early bird gets the worm". Again, I ask you for this adage of which you speak.
According to the Bible, we sin because Adam gave up dominion.

If humans are being judged on their individual merits, why the following verse? Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?


This verse show that humans are not being totally judged individually. You keep raising and lowering the bar so it can fit with scripture, but all you're doing is contradicting yourself more and more.

One more time (since it seems to have escaped you in my earlier post in this thread) National sin (land of Israel) vs. personal sin. It is right there in the book.

So the OT god is great eventhough he blames innocent children for their parents sins, then turns around and kills them in the process? If you consider that as being a product of a great judge, then by default, you must include Hitler and Stalin in that number.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin (nor any other human) meet the criteria for Creator of the Universe.

The OT god KNEW Adam would fail, yet he put nothing in place to prevent it? Like I stated earlier, he toyed with Adam like a puppet, while all the time KNOWING that he would fail. Adam being set up to fail is as clear as day.
After toying with him, he PUNISHED and banished him from the garden for doing something he already KNEW he was going to do. Nevermind the fact that Adam was already at a severe disadvantage when it came to cunning intelligence. He didn't stand a chance.
I wonder how the Jesus character would've fared if he didn't have the full measure of the holy spirit. Thank goodness, such nonsense is fictional. If not, it would be the height of embarassing injustice.

Back to the other thread. Reading IS fundamental.

 

[dacontinent]

Here we go again. Use the emergency excuse button of "we don't understand, but god knows best" excuse. It never fails. No matter how illogical, tyrannical and unjust, it seems that in the eyes of some, the OT god can do no wrong. Nevermind the genocides, slavery, killing of innocent children, babies and women. Nevermind the sanctioned raping of captured women, nevermind the sanctioning of laws that a rape victim can be forced to marry her rapist; nevermind the fact that thousands of innocent babies were drowned in the flood eventhough they had nothing to do with sinning. The list of atrocities and evils go on and on and on, but it doesn't seem to matter to some. For the sake of their god, anything goes.

No emergency. Read the other thread. Already covered.

If he knew that the OT babies and children didn't have a debt to begin with, why kill them off?
Besides, I didn't ask the Jesus character to die. I didn't take part in putting a stake in his side. I didn't take part in preventing Adam from defeating satan. According to the bible, the Jesus character concocted all of this on his own, yet blames me for his death? If anything, the first Adam has a right to blame him because he was played like a puppet and was made to fail.

Ibid

This had nothing to do with a national law because it occurred long before the Israelites were formed as a nation. It happened during the flood and before the flood.

Johnny and Jim are not recorded as being around at the time of the flood.

In other words, you have no rebuttal relating to the fact that the OT god sat there and watched Adam fail?

No need. Read the thread. Better yet, read the Bible. Nevermind...you tried that already and now argue in circles. I will try to think of something else to help you.

Another copout and counting. I can't find that discussion anywhere.

Look harder. As has been noted previously, I have no control over the archiving of threads.

I'd rather the choice of life and de ath be left up to someone who doesn't have the propensity to blame the innocent on behalf of the guilty. If that would be you, then at least humans would stand a better chance of having justice meted out fairly and justly.

The choice of life and death is left up to you.

It's amazing that you hesitate to criticize the words of the bible when it comes to the principle of vicarious liability, but when it comes to the laws of this nation, you admit that such a principle would not be a good thing at all for this nation.
This is a textbook definition of sadomasochism, learning to fear the one you love. Perhaps this is why some hesitate to criticize obvious injustices in the bible due to learned fear of what they THINK might happen to them if they did. Thankfully, I'm no longer under such mind-controlled fear and terror.

Perhaps some people are motivated that way. Others are motivated by love. That is the crew that I am with. Completely free.