The innocent punished with the guilty(from original sin thread)(Christian Only)

JimiTime

CHRISTIAN ONLY RESPONSE PLEASE

As per discussion on the Original sin thread. The question was raised:
Why are the innocent punished for the sins of the guilty? I.E. Davids first child with Bathsheeba, and the infants of the Amorites etc?
Has anyone got an idea?

Splendour

Hi Jimi,

Having lost a baby myself,I can safely say it is hell on earth to go through.It is David who suffered the -not the child. And as the baby went to be with the Lord, this is hardly a punishment for the child!
TBH in this case, I'm more concerned why David wasn't stoned for committing adultery as was the law of the day, but that's for another thread...

I really don't know enough about the Amorites to pass any comment, but from what little I know it is absolutely horriffic and as with alot of stuff that happens in life, I want a really darn good explanation for it when I get to Heaven...

JimiTime

Splendour wrote: »

Hi Jimi,

Having lost a baby myself,I can safely say it is hell on earth to go through.

Indeed, I watched my sister go through it. I remember my own pain, I can't imagine what it was like for my sis.

It is David who suffered

Absolutely. The days he spent on his face in the temple are heart wrenching.

the -not the child.

I disagree here. The baby suffered the ailment God gave, and then suffered death. Though this was a punishment for David, there is no denying that the child was punished also. Like the first born of Egypt too. Not to be offensive, as I really appreciate your input, but I feel your explaination above is one that allows you not to think about it any more. I've heard it said before, but it just seems more like an, 'its an answer, now lets move on'. I really don't think it satisfies the question. IMO anyway.

And as the baby went to be with the Lord, this is hardly a punishment for the child!

Thats a whole other thread:)

TBH in this case, I'm more concerned why David wasn't stoned for committing adultery as was the law of the day, but that's for another thread...

Well someone died because of it. Like you said though, how come he didn't fall under the law, thats something I never really thought about.

I really don't know enough about the Amorites to pass any comment, but from what little I know it is absolutely horriffic and as with alot of stuff that happens in life, I want a really darn good explanation for it when I get to Heaven...

This is the trouble though. There are a few scenario's I see.

1.) God kills the innocent, which opens up an unsettling can of worms.

2.) All are born in sin, in which case all are liable and all are guilty. Thus, we live by Gods undeserved kindness. TBH, this one makes sense to me. We are still sufferring death due to our fathers (Adam) sin afterall. If in fact we don't really inherit sin, then everyone, potentially, could live forever, but the moment each individual sins, death comes. This I suppose is the sinful nature arguement, but it makes little sense to me.

Now someone in the other thread mentioned that it was different, that sons bear the consequence of their fathers sin. Such as a junkie giving birth to a baby who is addicted to smack etc. That, to me, is irrelavent when discussing Gods direct punishment on a child such as the case of David.

Again, I've no solid opinion on the matter, just thoughts and theories. Unfortunately, it looks like no-one else has a solid opinion neither:(
Thought the thread was innocent myself, but obviously died a death:) Thanks for your thoughts Santing.

sorella

We leave these issues to God, simply. Do all we can when there is need. For all who suffer.

Attempting to "understand" God?

No way; He is Lord.

It would be like Icarus flying too near the sun.

Blessings.

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, I watched my sister go through it. I remember my own pain, I can't imagine what it was like for my sis.


Absolutely. The days he spent on his face in the temple are heart wrenching.


I disagree here. The baby suffered the ailment God gave, and then suffered death. Though this was a punishment for David, there is no denying that the child was punished also. Like the first born of Egypt too. Not to be offensive, as I really appreciate your input, but I feel your explaination above is one that allows you not to think about it any more. I've heard it said before, but it just seems more like an, 'its an answer, now lets move on'. I really don't think it satisfies the question. IMO anyway.


Thats a whole other thread:)



Well someone died because of it. Like you said though, how come he didn't fall under the law, thats something I never really thought about.


This is the trouble though. There are a few scenario's I see.

1.) God kills the innocent, which opens up an unsettling can of worms.

2.) All are born in sin, in which case all are liable and all are guilty. Thus, we live by Gods undeserved kindness. TBH, this one makes sense to me. We are still sufferring death due to our fathers (Adam) sin afterall. If in fact we don't really inherit sin, then everyone, potentially, could live forever, but the moment each individual sins, death comes. This I suppose is the sinful nature arguement, but it makes little sense to me.

Now someone in the other thread mentioned that it was different, that sons bear the consequence of their fathers sin. Such as a junkie giving birth to a baby who is addicted to smack etc. That, to me, is irrelavent when discussing Gods direct punishment on a child such as the case of David.

Again, I've no solid opinion on the matter, just thoughts and theories. Unfortunately, it looks like no-one else has a solid opinion neither:(
Thought the thread was innocent myself, but obviously died a death:) Thanks for your thoughts Santing.