Hi yah czar;
The first statement emphasizes the need for individual accountability for our actions.
Here's the first statements again in a slightly more modern transalation (NIV);
Exodus 20:5 ... I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me ...
Exodus 34:7 ... maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." ...
Okay, so your definition of 'indivdual accountability' extends to having to factor in the fact god will punish your great-great-grand children for what you do wrong. So, you are saying that John WIlkes Booth should have considered the possibility that his great-great grandchildren (if he had any) would be persecuted for his crime? That is would be just for Bushy to order the summary execustion of any descendants of this Presidental assasin?
Wonderful, you and YHWH will get on just fine...
If we assume ...
Ah, you assume... well, just as long as you have a good solid argument...
... that the second statement;
which is;
Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 ... The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. ess of the wicked will be charged against him....
must complement the first, ...
Which you have to do as otherwise YHWH looks like a mad butcher...
... it becomes a significant concept in Judeo-Christian philosophy:
Well, your assumption actually adds to scripture czar; check out the last verses of Revelation, you shouldn't do that, it's bad. Your first claim is
"Each person stands on his own for what he did."
How can that be when a child (and it doesn't say they have done wrong themselves) is punished for the actions of a relative who died before they were born?
Your second claim;
Even if people as close to the individual as the PARENTS did something wrong, that does NOT in any way excuse the need for punishment for the individual's wrong.
Are you saying 'if parents of a child did something wrong that does not excuse in any way the need for punishing the child's own wrongs'?
I add the question mark as I want to make sure you actually believe that. If this is a fair expression of your beliefs, I would again say that you are adding to scripture, as it doesn't say 'the wrong-doing great-great grandchildren of wrong-doers shall be punished'. It seem clear that the great-great grand children's punishment is soley due to the actions of their great-great grand parents; any assumption it is due to any wrong-doing on their part is not backed-up by scripture.
Part of the problem is the conceit of modern Western society that punishment is bad, something to be avoided. In a way, it is. But we neglect to emphasize the positive consequences of punishment, or discipline. We learn to behave, to share, to be kind to the weak through consequences.
I don't see what that point has to do with Biblical contradiction; the contradiction was there way before modern Western society, and your 'explanation' above has had several medium-sized aircraft flown through it...
A second positive result is the establishment of absolute morality. Today's society is relativistic, a self-defeating concept that destroys the fabric of society.
That looks great when you type it! Can you prove it? By this I mean that 1/ modern society uses relativistic values AND 2/ that this destroys the fabric of soceity. Otherwise you're just making grand statements with nothing in them.
However, according to this standard of God, there is a morality that we are ALL held to, no matter what we were taught or what our neighbors and parents SEEM to be getting away with.
Yes yes, but a morality that encompasses punishing innocent great-great grand children for their great-great grand parents sins, a morality that allows god to order that virgin girls be taken as prisoners of war (with the inevitable concequences), and that everyone else dies by the sword, a morality that means whilst doing this the same entity supposedly enjoinders its followers to follow a different standard to that which itself sets, well, that morality you can wipe my cat's arse with.
Here's an example:
Hey, I know you're subconsiously working on the theory if you carry on long enough we'll forget the scriptures are undeniably contradictory, but it doesn't work.
No, here God is clearly stating that it is each individual's responsibility to stand up and do the right thing no matter what the traditions we have learned are.
No, YOU say god is saying that. It's the only explanation that doesn't make god a monster, which is why you choose it. Pity it's not backed up by scripture.
But, well, I'll just go and rant elsewhere, shall I? And you can go and get a decent argument, and we can meet back here tomorrow. Sound fair?
Alternately you can stop using a savage primative book (the OT) written by a savage primative people (the Israelites, probably whilst in Babylon to restore crushed identity, as distinct from being written by Moses during a 40 year-long trek in the wilderness that has not left one midden as evidence) as a guide to life and use common sense instead.
I know that doing that removes a godsaidso argument and means you actually have to make a decent argument, but hey, life is about learning!
