Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim: These verses point to the innate, sinful nature of man. Having been created with instincts, man will sin, but he can repent. God deemed it necessary that man possess instincts, but to be used in His service. Invariably, man’s emotions will get the best of him. But with continued strides, man can remove himself more and more from sin, until he perfects himself.

    The Talmud (Sabbath 55b) discusses the fact that four men died due to the counsel of the snake. But all others die of their own sin. These four men were sinless. However, death was still “fitting” for them, in a manner. This is a different idea of “original sin”. This means that Adam and Eve demonstrated that man’s nature required mortality as a response. Their sin is in fact representative of the shortcomings of all humans. Due to their sin, God deemed mortality a necessary response, for the good of all men and women. Even if one does not sin, as these four, death is still necessary for man’s well-being. For without death, man eludes himself of his imagined greatness. This leads man to rebellion. In order that all future generations are deterred from erring as Adam and Eve, God rendered man mortal.

    We are not “paying the price” for their sin, as understood by other religions. For the Torah openly states God’s justice: “Each man in his own sin shall die”. (Deut. 24:16) The reason we must die is because primordial man demonstrated this human need for mortality, they were the prime example of what all humans are, and need. God made mortality so, as a good for all humans. But God would not make man mortal, until he displayed this need, even though God knew man would sin. God does only what is necessary. This is a foundation of God’s attributes. Only once man sins, does God create the remedy. Causing man to be mortal before he displayed any need for mortality would be an injustice.
    "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 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.
      Right, but the idea is presented in the 'Myth' of Adam and Eve.

      Jon Miller
      Jon Miller-
      I AM.CANADIAN
      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 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.
        What you're thinking of is called the satisfaction view of the atonement.

        AFAIK the Eastern church accepts substitutionary atonement just as much as the Latin church does.
        12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
        Stadtluft Macht Frei
        Killing it is the new killing it
        Ultima Ratio Regum

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lord of the mark
          Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim: These verses point to the innate, sinful nature of man. Having been created with instincts, man will sin, but he can repent. God deemed it necessary that man possess instincts, but to be used in His service. Invariably, man’s emotions will get the best of him. But with continued strides, man can remove himself more and more from sin, until he perfects himself.

          The Talmud (Sabbath 55b) discusses the fact that four men died due to the counsel of the snake. But all others die of their own sin. These four men were sinless. However, death was still “fitting” for them, in a manner. This is a different idea of “original sin”. This means that Adam and Eve demonstrated that man’s nature required mortality as a response. Their sin is in fact representative of the shortcomings of all humans. Due to their sin, God deemed mortality a necessary response, for the good of all men and women. Even if one does not sin, as these four, death is still necessary for man’s well-being. For without death, man eludes himself of his imagined greatness. This leads man to rebellion. In order that all future generations are deterred from erring as Adam and Eve, God rendered man mortal.

          We are not “paying the price” for their sin, as understood by other religions. For the Torah openly states God’s justice: “Each man in his own sin shall die”. (Deut. 24:16) The reason we must die is because primordial man demonstrated this human need for mortality, they were the prime example of what all humans are, and need. God made mortality so, as a good for all humans. But God would not make man mortal, until he displayed this need, even though God knew man would sin. God does only what is necessary. This is a foundation of God’s attributes. Only once man sins, does God create the remedy. Causing man to be mortal before he displayed any need for mortality would be an injustice.
          I don't think you fully understand the Christian positions. Admitedly, there are many of them (and I don't fully understand them, and definnitely didn't present them well).

          Jon Miller
          Jon Miller-
          I AM.CANADIAN
          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lord of the mark


            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.
            In the Genesis 'Myth' the fall is in the very beginning. I think that is sort of the basis or reason for the story.

            I guess I don't really know how Jews take the first chapters of Genesis.

            Christians take them as fact, or some ignore them completely. But others take them as 'Myth' that is expressing something.

            Jews have pretty good history, which Rabi's first discussed these ideas?

            Jon Miller
            Jon Miller-
            I AM.CANADIAN
            GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Elok


              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?
              Catholic theology and Eastern theology are actually quite similar on the matter of the meaning of original sin.

              I'm guessing you never read the relevant portions of the Catholic catechism.
              12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
              Stadtluft Macht Frei
              Killing it is the new killing it
              Ultima Ratio Regum

              Comment


              • #22
                [QUOTE] Originally posted by Jon Miller


                in the Genesis 'Myth' the fall is in the very beginning. I think that is sort of the basis or reason for the story.

                I guess I don't really know how Jews take the first chapters of Genesis.



                Needless to say, in many different ways.

                Christians take them as fact, or some ignore them completely. But others take them as 'Myth' that is expressing something.

                Jews have pretty good history, which Rabi's first discussed these ideas?



                Genesis Raba was a major book of Midrash (early sermons, commentaries, etc) from I think the 4th c or so CE.

                Im thinking there were major things said on the subject by Nachmanides, but i dont have any quotes handy.
                "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Can a man be punished for another's crime, a son for his father's?

                  Originally posted by aneeshm
                  Also, can the guilt or "sin" of a crime be passed on from father to son?
                  If you ask this in China, "yes" will be the overwhelming answer. It's not from original sin, obviously. But instead, the sense that a family is a collective unit.
                  “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                  "Capitalism ho!"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by KrazyHorse
                    Catholic theology and Eastern theology are actually quite similar on the matter of the meaning of original sin.

                    I'm guessing you never read the relevant portions of the Catholic catechism.
                    I haven't read the Catholic catechism; if they share our opinion on original sin as opposed to the "inherited guilt" nonsense I'd heard they believe, good for them. But it's been hammered into me since childhood that we inherited Adam's predilections towards wickedness, *not* responsibility for his actions (the latter being the supposed Catholic viewpoint). Maybe BK can clarify this.

                    Dunno about satisfaction vs. substitution, it's not like we use either term regularly.
                    1011 1100
                    Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If you ask Dave Chappelle the answer is yes.
                      "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                      “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Basically, Catholics do not believe that people inherited Adam&Eve's responsibility. Their sin was their own. However, Catholics believe that their sin has had consequences for the rest of us. Original sin has affected human nature. It weakened us, subjected us to mortality, and gave us a tendency to sin ourselves.
                        12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                        Stadtluft Macht Frei
                        Killing it is the new killing it
                        Ultima Ratio Regum

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Elok


                          I haven't read the Catholic catechism; if they share our opinion on original sin as opposed to the "inherited guilt" nonsense I'd heard they believe, good for them. But it's been hammered into me since childhood that we inherited Adam's predilections towards wickedness, *not* responsibility for his actions (the latter being the supposed Catholic viewpoint). Maybe BK can clarify this.

                          Dunno about satisfaction vs. substitution, it's not like we use either term regularly.
                          Substitutionary atonement simply states that Jesus' suffering and death were necessary for humans to be saved.

                          The satisfaction view of atonement is a subset of this. It states that God required satisfaction to be received for the sins of the world to be forgiven and thus for humans to be saved.
                          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                          Stadtluft Macht Frei
                          Killing it is the new killing it
                          Ultima Ratio Regum

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X