Can a man be punished for another's crime, a son for his father's?

[aneeshm]

While musing on Christian theology, I thought of this question.

Can one man be punished for another's crime? If he were, would it be right?

And is it possible for one man to "accept" another's sin, and the punishment for it, as his own?

Also, can the guilt or "sin" of a crime be passed on from father to son?

[Perfection]

No, but it is possible for sons to stick to mindset that made their father's criminal. That mindset may need to be changed.

[Pekka]

Give us examples.

Or otherwise face death in librul artist hell.

[Jon Miller]

Central to Pauline Christianity is Christ dying for our sins. While Judaism in the Bible suggests that one's forbearers sins continue to burden you, this isn't currently emphasized in mainstream Christianity.

Jon Miller

[Barnabas]

The bible itself says that a son shouldnt be punished for the sins of the father.

If what you have in mind is original sin, then you misunderstood it.

[Jon Miller]

Guilt and sin are not the same thing. Additionally, sin and the consequences of sin are not the same.

Jill doesn't drink, and is a careful driver. She is driving home one night, when she is hit by Bill, who has just left the bar and can't even remember his own name. While Jill hasn't sinned here, the consequences of Bill's sins have definitely affected her.

Jon Miller

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Barnabas
The bible itself says that a son shouldnt be punished for the sins of the father.

If what you have in mind is original sin, then you misunderstood it.

What's the difference between sins of the father and original sin?

[Elok]

The substitutionary atonement doctrine was invented by a man named Anselm of Canterbury about a thousand years ago. It doesn't make any sense, but it spread like wildfire and became part of the western tradition. We Orthodox find it vile and repellent--always have--and, as seen in this thread, many westerners choose to distance themselves from it as well. JM's drunk-driving example is a good one IMO.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Elok
The substitutionary atonement doctrine was invented by a man named Aneeshm of Canterbury

I'm pretty sure he's from India.

[Jon Miller]

Original Sin has it's beginning in the 'Myth' of Genesis. The idea is that man had dominion over the earth, and was it's ruler. But by Adam sinning, the dominion was given to Lucifer. As such, the earth is in a state of sin and corruption...

Some of that might be SDA theology. Clearer is this:

By the first sin in the world ('Myth' of Genesis), mortal man/etc became fallen. We are inclined to sin, as the corruption is within us... from that time.

It doesn't have anything to do with being punished for Adam's sin (or Original sin). Rather, it is a state... we are now sinful creatures, and have an inclination to do evil.

Jon Miller

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection
What's the difference between sins of the father and original sin?

In my church at least, we distinguish between our inherited predilection towards sin and inherited guilt for your parents' sin. Plus there's the guilt vs. consequences thing mentioned by JM. The Catholics think differently, I know, but then they're Catholic, what do you expect?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Central to Pauline Christianity is Christ dying for our sins. While Judaism in the Bible suggests that one's forbearers sins continue to burden you, this isn't currently emphasized in mainstream Christianity.

Jon Miller

Judaism expects each individual to take responsibility for himself, though acknowledging that we exist together as part of a community.

Though in some situations we posit a symbolic or mythological presence of all individuals. Thus, this week, as we celebrate Passover, we are reminded over and over again to consider that each of us individually was freed from slavery in Egypt - just as later, it is held that each of us was present at Sinai, and each of us accepted the Law.

[Barnabas]

Original sin doesnt mean that the same "sin of Adam and Eve" has been sexually transmited to all mankind since that moment,
it just means that after that (the original sin), sin entered the world, and the perfect relation of mankind with God was lost, that the original sin affected the nature of all the humans that would come and be born in the future, making them more propense to sin.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Rather, it is a state... we are now sinful creatures, and have an inclination to do evil.

Jon Miller

We believe that man has two inclinations - the Yetzer Hara, the evil inclination, and the Yetzer Hatov, the good inclination. The evil inclination is not a product of the fall, but was implanted within man from the beginning - why? Because its NOT entirely evil - mans selfishness, greed, and lust lead him to marriage, to work to be able to support a family, etc. It makes civilization possible. But only when controlled, by Torah.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok


In my church at least, we distinguish between our inherited predilection towards sin and inherited guilt for your parents' sin.

So original sin in your view is not actual sin?