Board index ‹ Sin

[Just browsing]

Imagine you have two young children: a son and a daughter. You tell them not to kick the soccer ball around inside the house. Your son decides to do it anyway, and he ends up breaking your favorite vase. As a result of your son’s actions, you decide to ground your daughter for a week and spank her.

Would this be fair? Would this be good parenting? Why is it okay for “god” to punish one person or group for another’s actions? And why would you respect a “god” who does this?

[jimwalton]

Ezekiel 18.20 says, "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." We are all accountable for what we have done, not for what others have done.

[Just Browsing]

Seems like “god” is a bit of a hypocrite then, considering he killed Jesus to punish him for everyone else’s sins, and he punished all of humanity because one person ate an apple

[jimwalton]

That's a different situation. The example you gave was one child being punished for what another child did: two people on the same social scale and under the same authority structure. Of course there's nothing fair about that, and that's not something God does or would do.

Jesus dying for our sins, however, can (in one sense) be likened to someone paying your debt for you—like the government paying off your student loan. There's nothing hypocritical or immoral about that. It's actually quite generous, don't you think? A compassionate act of mercy.

[Just Browsing]

When the government forgives student loans, no one gets hurt or killed as a result. Not to mention, taking out a student loan is not a sin. It’s an investment in ones future. Therefore it doesn’t require any punishment. Jesus dying for our sins is more like this scenario-

A serial killer is finally caught and imprisoned. At the trial, they decide to let him go free and execute his brother instead.

Would you support that? Would that be fair in your eyes? Would you respect the judge who handed down that sentence? Would you describe it as (your words) “a compassionate act of mercy?” I’m guessing not

[jimwalton]

Then your initial analogy was extremely misleading.

So, OK, let's talk about it. You're right that in the situation of student loans no one is getting killed. So also with children breaking a valued vase, so let's leave that behind.

A more realistic situation is the one you posed here: some deserving of death for what they have done.

Now, it wouldn't be fair if they decide to let him go free and execute his brother instead. But if the brother volunteered (like Katniss volunteered instead of her sister in The Hunger Games), we would see this as noble. If the judge would agree, it would be perceived like Katniss in THG.

The difference between your situation and the Bible is that in your situation the judge apparently just grabbed the brother and killed him instead—not fair at all. In the Bible, Jesus went to the cross not only willingly but because of His love for us. It was a compassionate act of mercy.

[Just Browsing]

I recall a news story where a drunk teenager hit a van full of women who were coming home from work and killed them all, but he survived. I’m curious to know how you can worship someone who would let all those innocent women be killed while the perpetrator lives. As an atheist, it genuinely boggles my mind. Can you give me some insight?

[jimwalton]

This is a completely different question and a completely different issue than what you raised and what we're discussing. This question pertains to the problem of evil, not punishing God's Son for the sins of humanity.

But we can talk about it briefly. (I say "briefly" because the question of the problem of evil and suffering is very complex.) God created the world to work by cause-and-effect. If He were to interfere in every situation where there might be suffering, evil, or unfairness, there would be no such thing as cause-and-effect, no such thing as science, no reason, and no sense to things. There would be no predictabilities. God would govern every thought we have, every move we make, every word from our mouths, and every perception of things and people. In other words, we would no longer be human, and rational thought would cease to exist. It's a completely unacceptable situation.

Instead, God lets things take their course. The Bible tells us that He's not totally distanced, though. Instead, He redeems evil, shares suffering, helps us grow through both, and teaches us things we could never otherwise learn through hard times and crises. It's a much better strategy, and it allows the world to function.

[Obi Wan]

Well if we're referring to the Christian Bible, then God also said he would punish the children, grand kids and great grand kids of people who hated him...

Deuteronomy 5:9 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for 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,"

So this God is not only unjust but also inconsistent. I'm not going to start cheering for the guy just because 600-700 years BCE he changed his mind about deliberately punishing the innocent.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for bringing this up, although this shows that you haven't done research on the text but are just reading it superficially.

The root for the word translated "punishing" is pqd. It means "to attend to (with care); take note; visit (making a visitation, pointing to action that produces a great change in the position of a subordinate either for good or for ill, as in Pharaoh’s servants in Gn. 40: one was restored and the other executed.); appoint; muster or number (of gathering troops or to ascertain the available manpower), reckon." So, "punishing" in this context is best read as "determine destiny" (to attend to their lives, point to actions, appoint). The sin of the parents here refers to a destiny of calamity or destruction. In other words, the one who sins will face punishment. So when the adult units face demise, so also do the children under them, usually just in the course of normal cause-and-effect. Mistakes by parents live on in their children who are often under their care or even trained in their footsteps. This is not to say the children's fate is set or that the children are punished for what their parents did, but only that when a family runs into trouble (especially in their day when family units stayed communally together for generations), that trouble plays itself through many generations. The verse doesn't show that children are punished through no fault of their own, but rather than when the dad messes up, the children often bear some of the consequences (think of gamblers, alcoholics, liars, cheaters, philanderers, and just hateful people). Future generations often suffer the consequences of the mistakes of their predecessors. It's often the case that someone who hates God (Ex. 20.5) teaches their children that same hate (as also true with racism, misogyny, etc.).