Visiting the sins of the father or mother upon the children — NOT
Bookworm on Oct 02 2012 at 8:33 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama
The Bible has a lot to say about visiting the sins of the father upon the children. When it comes to Jewish failure to hold to the First Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.“), God is completely unforgiving:
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, . . . (Exodus 2:1-26)
The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation. (Numbers 14:18)
You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. (Deuteronomy 5:9)
When it comes to sins other than violating the First Commandment, though, the Bible is careful to say that sin is individual, not generational:
Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:19-20)
This notion of individual, rather than generational, sin is important now, because there’s a controversy brewing about a video being sent to voters in swing states purporting to show Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, posing in fetish magazines. Looking at the pictures, it’s certainly possible that Ann Dunham posed for them. But what do I know? It’s equally possible that it’s a doppelgänger.
The really important thing, though, is that Ann’s behavior immediately before or after Obama’s birth is completely irrelevant to Obama’s reelection campaign. Obama is no more and no less worthy to be president if his mom was a “bad” girl, than if she was a “good” girl. Smearing someone’s mother is low.
There are certainly things about Obama’s own youth that are relevant and that I do believe voters should know. Since he’s being sold as a genius and a scholar, his grades matter to me. Because his politics have a whiff of socialism about them, and because his actions hew to the Left of his scripted words, I believe his associations as a youth (Frank Marshall Davis) and as an ad, etc.) matter. But that his Mom was a slut puppy? None of our business.
Email This Post To A Friend
15 Responses to “Visiting the sins of the father or mother upon the children — NOT”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Absolutely agree.
However, understanding the tormented and dysfunctional upbringings of Obama and Clinton sheds a lot of light on their actions as Presidents of the most powerful nation on earth. When I learn of someone’s dysfunctional background, I don’t ignore it. I try to discern whether it has strengthened them or corrupted them.
You are correct that Obama is not responsible for his mothers actions. If the allegations are true, they do raise the question of whether she passed along a relaxed moral code to him. Or rather they just explain it to some degree, as his moral code in no longer in question.
The interesting thing about the scriptures above, is how often they are ignored by those with grievances, despite their claims to follow Biblical teaching. Despite what Jeremiah Wright preached, I am not responsible for, or owe reparations because, his ancestors were held in slavery by mine.
This is also something separates Judeo/Christian beliefs from Islam, which is famous for it’s century old grudges.
In fact, it shoots down any grievance mongering which is more than one generation old. Wouldn’t the world be a better place if everyone followed that teaching?
Hard to say, Jose, I think it would, but Somebody evidently would not agree. As you are doubtless aware, by the time we’re a couple of weeks old all us Christians better get dunked to expiate a sin we didn’t commit; one that was evidently committed long, long ago in a place far, far away by people quite strange to us. Doesn’t matter: you don’t go for a metaphorical swim, you will be consigned to a quite real perdition. You want to shoot down grievances more than one generation old – okay, I believe it’s a fine idea – you better start right at the top, with the ultimate grudge-holder.
The old testament is so inconsistent, illogical, (if not positively anti-logical), and generally loopy that it’s very tough to base any system that has even a soupcon of logic thereon. (And anybody who’s ever read the book knows the Lord may be many things, but “slow to anger” isn’t one of them!) It’s a great read and a lot of fun, the O.T. – but it’s a sword that cuts in all directions.
I’ll agree that he’s not responsible for his mother’s general ass***ishness – apparently her parents were responsible for that – but she did pass along a lot of attitudes. Certainly when Lolo Soetero decided to become a capitalist and showed signs of actual success-through-hard-work, she got her kid the hell out of that environment ASAP, and shipped him off to his Commie grand-parents. That environment was becoming far too healthy! His natural father being (a) gone; and (b) a mostly worthless lying drunk, they found him a mentor: Frank Marshall Davis, a notorious pedophile Communist. But whether or not his idiot mother appeared in a magazine, fetish or otherwise, (God – why? This was not by any measure any kind of hottie,or even vaguely attractive member of the distaff, what the hell could those editors have been thinking?) seems irrelevant to what kind of bozo he constitutes in himself. He got enough shitty influences from her, and from Granny; I’ll give them a pass on the fetish-magazine thing.
JJ “ (…Lord may be many things, but “slow to anger” isn’t one of them!)”
Slow is a relative term and is difficult to get a sense of time in written docs. For example we say that the gospels cover three and a half years of Jesus’ ministry yet really what is recorded covers about 6 months stretched out over that same three and a half years.
If he was not ‘slow to anger’ why would He send prophets to prevent immediate destruction? In the case of Jonah he was ready to destroy Nineveh but sent Jonah to tell them to shape up or else. I suppose that the case could be made “See, He’s already angry”. This may be but we are not told how long it took to get Him that way. What by the way He was angry about was in part the Assyrian child sacrifice to Molech. Now about perceptions. How quick to anger do you think the Assyrians thought Molech was that they would routinely sacrifice their children to him? As Abraham and Issac’s story tells us the G-d of Israel is far different than the other gods.
Far different. Hum. Actually Yahweh was just one of the boys (El and Baal both being far more important than he was), and in point of fact a fairly minor storm god one of the boys in the Canaanite pantheon before he got promoted to prime time. He wasn’t especially far different from other gods, he was in fact one of the other gods.
Even at that El remained the big dog, thus all the “el” names, including Yisrael itself. Note that it’s named “Isra-EL” and not “Isweh,” or something, though throughout the narratives it’s Yahweh (or YHWH) who is credited. Michael (who is like God); Daniel (my judge is God); Zadkiel (righteousness of God); Uriel (fire of God) – most of the angels are named in reference to El, nobody’s named in reference to YHWH. Even old Ishmael (God has heard), source of so much trouble. (Though Islam worships a god called “Lah.” Thus al-Lah. Kind of like Muammar al-Kaddafy, or Saddam al-Hussein. The name isn’t Allah, it’s al-Lah, the “al” is part of the address, not part of the name.)
So here we all are, with El and Lah. (The world didn’t go in much for polysyllabic names back in those days, apparently. Simpler times.) Yisrael can be taken in two ways, depending on how the “sra,” which springs from the root “sry” is used. It either means “he has been saved by God,” or “he has striven with God.” The world mostly goes with the second meaning, as it comes from Genesis 32, wherein Jacob spends the night wrestling somebody. At dawn the stranger asks him his name, he says “Jacob,” and the stranger says “nope, henceforth your name is Israel because you spent all night wrestling (striving) with God” – or an angel as His representative.
There are other possibilities for the meaning of Yisrael, some of them pretty polytheistic, too. “God who will rule,” as opposed to the others who won’t? the bible is of course full of polytheistic references, many of them by El and Yahweh themselves. Interestingly, throughout the old testament neither YHWH nor El ever claim to be the only god. It’s people and the new testament that did that. The only thing they ever said to the Hebrews was that they, (whichever you like, YHWH or El,) were their god. Their god – not everybody’s, and not the only one. “No other gods before me” admits that other gods are possible – something no Christian does. Notice He didn’t demand the right to lead the parade, either, just march in the front row. Nobody else could lead, but He didn’t demand that He should, either. This is interesting. Maybe, (an outside possibility but just maybe,) He knows more about it than we do, and many aspects of earlier gods come through in Him/Them.
We’ve wandered a couple of miles from the point here – sorry. So: “far different” than other gods? No. Having Himself been an “other god,” I suspect He wasn’t so very different.
I appreciate the discussion here. For me it is not wandering far afield. I had never before considered the phrasing of “thou shalt honor no other gods before me”, and the tacit admission that there are “other gods” in such a statement,
I remain grateful for Book and for all the commenters on Book’s wonderful blog!
Acknowledging that someone calls something G-d does stipulate contemporary G-ds but rather a misplaced faith:
IS 45:18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),
“I am the Lord, and there is none else.
19 “I have not spoken in secret,
In some dark land;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
‘Seek Me in a waste place’;
I, the Lord, speak righteousness,
Declaring things that are upright.
20 “Gather yourselves and come;
Draw near together, you fugitives of the nations;
They have no knowledge,
Who carry about their wooden idol
And pray to a god who cannot save.
21 “Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together.
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the Lord?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except Me.
22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.
23 “I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
24 “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.’
Men will come to Him,
And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame.
25 “In the Lord all the offspring of Israel
Will be justified and will glory.”
From the Bible gateway:
Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.
Isaiah 44:7-9 (in Context) Isaiah 44 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Isaiah 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
Isaiah 45:4-6 (in Context) Isaiah 45 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Isaiah 45:14
Thus says the LORD, The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush And the Sabeans, men of stature, Will come over to you and will be yours; They will walk behind you, they will come over in chains And will bow down to you; They will make supplication to you: Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God.
Isaiah 45:13-15 (in Context) Isaiah 45 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Isaiah 45:21
Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.
Isaiah 45:20-22 (in Context) Isaiah 45 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Isaiah 45:22
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45:21-23 (in Context) Isaiah 45 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Good, Mac. And as I would not dick with your faith, there is where we leave it.
One of the things I get from reading what JJ said is that he falls into the problem of believing in God as human, yet also applying his own human interpretations of events vs other human interpretations. It’s a bit of a cherry pick to say that the Bible was only true when it came to showing omnipotence as being angry human behavior and ignore the rest. If you took all the bad actions of a hero, they would start looking like a mass murderer, because a hero tends to end up killing rapists and murderers every once in awhile. That’s no what it looks like to others when they only know about the violent behaviors. But that’s not really the issue.
Omnipotent power is the same as the nameless Wu of creation and destruction combined together in the ying/yang symbol of Eastern philosophy. Once a human applies a word to the concept, that concept is no longer divine or true. The more people want to apply human morality, restraints, social debate arguments, to a higher power, the more they fail to comprehend the exact nature of that power. Apply human morality to humans, that is what we designed it for. No human, none of the enlightened or religiously inspired individuals, ever attempted to apply human laws from the bottom up to the divine source of creation, whatever it may have been. That’s because they knew it didn’t work that way. The only way they could explain their revelations to their fellow humans was to use human concepts, because that’s how humans understand logic and emotions. To expose them to the bedrock reality of what was, would be beyond the super majority of humans living then, as it is true of those living here now.
One version of the translation.
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
2
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.
Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn’t possess,
acts but doesn’t expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.”
This feels like a “post modern interpretation”.
“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
Chapter 2
That it never goes away”
JJ while I appreciate your respect for me to have faith, my point was to put up texts that clearly countered your position lest others think that what you said was accurate. One thing that you said was: “ Interestingly, throughout the old testament neither YHWH nor El ever claim to be the only god. It’s people and the new testament that did that. ”
I supplied texts, old testament texts as opposed to the proposed new testament interpolation, that said otherwise not including the reference below. I cannot let a statement stand that I know to be either to be patently false, literarally massaged, or perhaps just errantly remembered to stand.
“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.”
Context is key to understanding. Reading the text and rereading the text helps us get beyond the reader response level of interpretation. Eclectic textual amalgams (cut and paste) or an eisogetical approach (read into it what you will) will only divert attention from any texts record, story or any truth in it.. An exegetical approach (drawing out of the text what is there) to the texts is what will get us to what it really says and transform the open mind. For instance the reference to “No other gods before me” in the light of the Isaiah passages makes it clear that such gods are not true gods but poor substitutes that are called gods by their followers.
As true throughout time today Money and Fame can be in this category. People sacrifice the upbringing of their children for them among other deaf, dumb and blind ‘gods’. I’m sorry that would be: hearing, speech and sight impaired gods…Now I am digressing…
JJ feel free to comment ask questions or whatever, I took no offense but thanks for the respect.
JJ
In comment #6 you stated “…nobody’s named in reference to YHWH.” That is incorrect on at least one count in the case of Elijah. The name incorporates references both to El and YHWH.
Wikipedia is not my original source, but they also cover this in the first line of their article.
“Elijah (also Elias /ɨˈlaɪ.əs/; Hebrew: אֱלִיָּהוּ, Eliyahu, meaning “My God is Yahweh“
Mac: Do you actually think I couldn’t produce a list of polytheistic biblical references – from all over both testaments – running into the hundreds? Have you genuinely not noticed that there’s been an entire branch of scholarship dedicated to tracking and understanding the history and polytheistic antecedents of the fairly minor and unimportant storm god YHWH? Have you, in yourself, never wondered what El was talking about, or who He was talking to, in, let’s say, Genesis? Most people don’t actually look at it or think about it very carefully, they’re simply raised to believe it. Which is fine. But don’t assert that there are no references to other gods, and no willingness to work with them on His part. His declaration of superiority and “I’m IT” is to the Hebrews – not the Franks. Not the Celts. Not the Ituraeans. Not the Macromanni. Not the Thracians, Hermanduri, or Roxolani. They never heard of Him. He wasn’t “It” anywhere, outside of His little corner. Which he knew. If He was God overall, as is asserted to Isaiah, it’s an awful narrow version of “overall.” He’s a relative late-comer in the scheme of human history: which as sentient beings (the way we define sentient; farming, building stuff, channeling water, etc.) extends back about 12,000 – 15,000 years. He’s been around for fewer than a quarter of them. And He left tracks, His antecedents are traceable. You can see where he came from. He was one of the gang for a very long time, and a not particularly important specimen at that. And you can plainly see this in what’s written about Him, without knowing anything about the Sumerians or Canaanites. The old testament reports on a time when the Hebrews themselves were shifting from polytheism to monotheism, and there were slips, gaps, overlaps, the occasional golden calf, etc. along the way. Other gods are named – not negatively, not especially positively: simply acknowledged as being there – on several occasions. Pretending it isn’t so is just silly. Don’t suspend your logical faculty when reading it. We often think we know what it means, even when that’s not what it says – because we’ve been taught what it means. You wouldn’t do that with anything else you ever read, don’t do it here, either.
Jose, #12 – True – but what point does it make? Kind of like saying: “my God isn’t God, it’s this guy over here.” El still means God. YHWH still doesn’t. Otherwise they wouldn’t be named separately. The name is just an announcement that somebody other than God is going to be taken to be God.
jj,
I’m not sure we are debating the same issue, but it is obvious to me that “El” is a generic term, as is “god”. I believe Baal is generic too, but I won’t argue that.
Since the Hebrews revered YHWH as the proper name of their god, they discouraged it’s casual use, so it isn’t surprising it doesn’t appear very often.