A curse on generational curses.

I have heard the subject of ‘generational curses’ spoken about many times, by many people in many places. More often then not, the conversation or teaching goes along the lines that you have curses on your life because of the things your forbears got up to.

Cautiously we can say there is some truth in that. Scripture does tell us to bring our children up in the knowledge of the Lord. And if we fail to do that, then our children will most likely not know the Lord. And being outside of relationship with the Lord has to be the worst thing imaginable.

However I digress, for this isn’t the ways its normally spoken off. I have to say I have much difficulty with this kind of teaching. It goes against the teaching of Scripture. Ezekial says,

Eze 18:1  This message came to me from the LORD:
Eze 18:2  “Why do you cite this proverb when you talk about Israel’s land: ‘The fathers eat sour grapes but it’s their children’s teeth that have become numb.’
Eze 18:3  As long as I live,” declares the LORD, “you won’t use this proverb about Israel anymore.

The Lord continues to speak to Ezekiel, saying

Eze 18:20  The soul who sins dies. The son won’t bear the punishment of his father’s sin and the father won’t bear the punishment of his son’s sin. The righteous deeds of that righteous person will be attributed to him, while the wicked deeds of the wicked person will be charged against him.

Again Ezekiel cries out the prophetic cry of Gods heart for his people. Saying this is what God wants from you.

That is, suppose he doesn’t eat at the mountain shrines, doesn’t look to the idols of Israel’s house, doesn’t defile his neighbour’s wife,  doesn’t oppress anyone, doesn’t take possession of a debtor’s pledge, or doesn’t steal, but instead shares his food with the hungry, gives clothes to those who are naked,  doesn’t refuse to help the afflicted, or refuses to loan with usury or exact interest…

The Apostle James says…Jas 2:17  In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead.

So we are faced with a sombre question to ask of ourselves. Do we have a dead faith?


About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in faith, Lifestyle and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A curse on generational curses.

  1. tildeb says:

    Cautiously we can say there is some truth in that. Scripture does tell us to bring our children up in the knowledge of the Lord. And if we fail to do that, then our children will most likely not know the Lord. And being outside of relationship with the Lord has to be the worst thing imaginable.

    And herein lies a great evil of religious belief, to pass on under the authority of being a responsible parent an imposition of superstition and lies masquerading as what’s true upon a developing mind, backed up by the threat of eternal torment and suffering if not believed. This indoctrination of youth is one of the most abusive actions people undertake on the assumption it is a good thing to do because it is considered pious when all the evidence shows that it is damaging at every turn.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Now. We know that its historically true that Christ lived and did many great things. We are faced with the three options about him. He was a liar, lunatic or who he claimed to be. Now you believe he was a liar and lunatic. That is your prerogative. I don”t know if you have children…but if you do, you are raising them up not to know Christ. Again that is your prerogative. However:If indeed Christ is who he claimed to be, again you are cursed and your cursing your children in the way you bring them up.

      Be the same as a father telling his kids its ok to go and play with the rattle snakes.

      • tildeb says:

        The Liar, Lunatic, or Lord (LLL) argument is very silly (thx CS for once again offering a flawed argument for dispersal). Has it ever occurred to you, Craig, that there are more than just these three possibilities? You tip your hand by calling the historical Jesus – if there really was one and the case is hardly airtight – ‘Christ,’ which comes prepackaged with a host of attributions that have no historical evidence (was god incarnate, raised from the dead, performed miracles, cursed trees, and so on as the stories go… written as they were many decades after the guy supposedly lived). We have third hand information and, on this basis, you are trying to excuse indoctrinating children with your – not their – religious beliefs. Why don’t the religious think highly enough of their children’s intellectual abilities to someday come to their own conclusions about religious beliefs later in life when they have the time and inclination to weigh these matters for themselves?

        Your piety gets in the way of good parenting. To test that charge I make, try substituting something else and see if you think the same pare3nting indoctrination isn’t child abuse: let’s take politics, for example, and teach our children that all Marxist ideas are the right ones, that any liberal or conservative politics are deemed evil and immoral, that political salvation only comes to those who support Marxism, who have ‘come to know’ this unalterable truth, the one political allegiance that grants our family any values worth holding, that to disagree means that you are doomed to be a social outcast and misfit for life, that any deviation from Marxism carries with it a threat to your character, to your ability to love and befriend others, and so on and so forth.

        It’s rather sick, don’t you think? Or are you suggesting that we should think highly of such parenting outside of religion that inflicts this one-and-only-one-political-view-as-the-loving-truth-or-suffer-everlasting-damnation-forever as a thoughtful and loving parent?

        Defenders of this intellectual abuse don’t see it because they don’t want to see it for what it actually is, don’t want to understand why it is reprehensible parenting, don’t want to learn why, don’t even care, doesn’t have either the intellectual capacity or the moral courage to find any other way than to indoctrinate their children in their own religious image. The selfishness is incredible to behold and the rationalizations astounding in the face of so much contrary evidence to its supposed positive effect. Child services would remove children if the reasons weren’t protected by misguided morons in positions of secular authority who make the assumption that, well, when it comes to religion, this kind of abuse suddenly becomes good!

        Believe whatever you want when it comes to you and your thoughts about this Christ figure, about your religious faith, about your faith-based beliefs in general, but a line needs to be drawn when it comes to inflicting your beliefs on the powerless. Parents who indoctrinate the helpless, the dependent, the innocent, are no better than bullies; it’s just that their ‘reasons’ are considered more pious than is the motivation for the school yard bully. But the effect is identical; you are not respecting the minds of your children when you enforce your religious beliefs on them. You are intentionally perverting and undermining their critical faculties for your own benefit. What does that say about your moral character when you are willing to make victims of your own children in the name of your religious beliefs, a victimization practice you wouldn’t tolerate in any other area of life without considering it abuse?

  2. Craig Benno says:

    Interesting you mention Marx. Have you ever met him..or is your information about him 3rd hand?

    In the end, if what I believe is wrong, there will be no eternal consequences. On the other hand, if I’m right…..

    Your yet to prove that Jesus wasn’t a liar, lunatic nor who he said he is…though I have repeatedly asked you to do so. The real reason why you don’t attempt it, is because you know you can’t.

    • tildeb says:

      No, I never met Marx but the historical evidence is overwhelming.

      Did you ever meet your great-great grandfather? Or does his existence only reside in your belief he did? This is another silly argument.

      You assume that out of all the religions that have ever been believed on this earth, you just so happen to have the correct one. Don’t you find that assumption a little, well, arrogant? A bit egotistical? Pascal’s wager – that the chances are 50-50 your belief in the afterlife through belief in Christ – is, once again, really quite silly when you consider the tens of thousands that offer a different set of beliefs necessary to gain this afterlife. Your chances have suddenly plummeted. to less that .0001 at best. Those are very, very long odds indeed, Craig.

      As for Jesus, we don’t even know if he existed! As for him being a lunatic or liar, I don’t know and you don’t either. Perhaps he was a charlatan, suffered a head injury, was created out of a combination of stories about a saviour figure, and so on. The possibilities are many and not simply lunatic or liar. In addition, neither you nor I know what you man by suggesting that Jesus was “who he said he was” because we only have third hand information to go by. That’s why I am quite right to point out that you simply replace the honest “I don’t know” with “I believe…” and assume your belief about Jesus as the Christ is true in fact! That’s dishonest, Craig. To then build on this dishonesty by presenting your beliefs to your kids as if YOUR belief were unquestionably true simply compounds the dishonest error you have made and cashed it in at the expense of your children’s ability to develop their own intellectual honesty.

      • Craig Benno says:

        On the basis of your dismissal of Christ, you also have to dismiss every single historical figure and all of history which dates back over three generations. …but then we get caught in a loop – because in 3 generations within your framework of dismissal, both you and I cannot be considered by that generation as historical figures.

      • tildeb says:

        I dismiss your claims about Jesus’ divinity because there are no good reasons to take them seriously. To take them seriously is to put aside what we know about reality for the sake of this one specific belief which I find insufficient. My problem isn’t that I find them insufficient but that you act on your belief pretending that they really are true. You are not being honest with your children and admitting that you do not know if they are true but choose to believe that they are and then extending that belief into the world under false pretenses. It is only on this basis of your belief that you then turn around and indoctrinate your children without clarifying that you do so only on your belief and not on anything true in reality. You don’t know anything at all about any afterlife, yet you build actions today on the assumptions you make about it. If you kept that influence strictly to yourself, then I wouldn’t say boo about it. But when it comes to kids and parents intentionally misleading them, then I do feel it is necessary to criticize this deplorable practice.

        No, I do not have to dismiss historical figure. Consider Myers’ straightforward point on this issue of history so many of the religious seem to have such difficulty grasping:

        “Yes, there are history laboratories: there are historians who do archaeology, chemistry, biology, astronomy and all kinds of hard sciences to confirm and test historical claims. The provenance and authenticity of documents is a major historical interest.

        A discrete historical event may not be repeatable, but it is amenable to confirmation and validation. The source information can be independently verified. Multiple approaches can be taken to test a claim. Did Caesar invade Gaul? It only happened once, you don’t get to repeat the invasion, and no one alive was there, after all. But we can look at the archaeology of France, we can see the linguistic evidence, we’ve got documents from the time, and every time someone digs up a Roman cache from the first century BCE we are getting more information on the event.

        I do consider it scientifically tractable. Evidence-based, empirical study and logical analysis are right there at the heart of the discipline of history.”

        The evidence gathered using this method for Jesus is, as I continue to point out, weak. What is non existent except for third hand reports is any similar historical evidence that inform the central tenets of your faith. Your disputation of this based solely on your faith does not improve this utter lack of good evidence.

      • Craig Benno says:

        Your waffling again, creating a wall of rhetoric! As for the resurrection, there have been countless men and women of greater minds then you and I who set out to prove it didn’t happen. Such as can be found here. http://www.philosophy-religion.org/faith/pdfs/Resurrection.pdf Though I doubt if you would read this short paper. At least these men / women had intellectual honesty to actually look into the claims themselves and were willing to admit they were wrong…

    • tildeb says:

      You may want to rethink your assumption here of betting on Pascal’s Wager…

  3. tildeb says:

    Craig, I’m not waffling nor spouting rhetoric nor am I willing to grant ‘greater minds’ have turned to belief on such flimsy evidence. Your ‘paper’ cost me several minutes of my life I’ll never get back but here’s some free advice: when a paper cites Henry Morris as a primary source, put it away and save yourself some wasted time. His professional reputation is gone and all that is left is the lying and bleating of a flaming creationist.

    As for the argument presented, that some people didn’t believe, investigated, and now believe, so we have evidence of the belief’s veracity, consider the belief in alien proctologists who not only make housecalls but abduct people. Sure enough, many believers didn’t believe, investigated, and now believe so the claim must be true! What could possibly be wrong with this reasoning? Might any other explanations be possible?

    Hume’s argument is actually directed against testimony-based belief in the miraculous, although others have extended the argument to the case of miracles directly experienced.[3] It proceeds by two steps. The first step is an argument for the claim that the antecedent probability of an event’s occurrence diminishes the credibility of testimony to it. That is, we must not only consider the credibility of the testifier, but also the antecedent probability of that which is testified to. The second step in Hume’s argument is a defense of his claim that the miraculous nature of a purported event makes its antecedent probability as small as could possibly be imagined; that any combination of natural events, however antecedently improbable, is antecedently more probable than a scenario involving supernatural intervention. If this argument is successful, then Hume has successfully impugned the rationality of anyone (including millions of Christians who believe in the resurrection of Jesus) who believes that a miracle has occurred.

    Spending time figuring out exactly what this passage means in regards to the testimony of people who wrote stories about Jesus’ divinity will actually enrich the quality of your mind should you so choose to investigate.

  4. tildeb says:

    Look, Craig, all I’m saying is that your beliefs belong to you. You have decided what is and isn’t true regarding these religious notions. What I think about them won;t affect what you think about them (hey, I’m a realist and I know that until you decide to respect reality over and above your faith that your beliefs are true, you will never accept any of the arguments I make regarding the veracity of your faith-based beliefs). I don’t need convincing that you believe your religious beliefs are true for you. I’m just reminding you that you need to take heed of that qualification: for you. By qualifying your beliefs, you can then appreciate why it is wrong – reprehensible, in fact – for you to impose these beliefs of yours on others… especially on those dependent on your parenting. You have no right to impose your beliefs on the authority of YOUR faith regardless of how much YOU are convinced that YOUR beliefs are true. To do so and assume piety is acting as a theological stormtrooper, a church-inspired bully.

    At least have a modicum of faith that your god doesn’t need YOU to impose his truth on your children. It is just as likely that he wants your children to come to him in the development of THEIR OWN faith… unless you presume god is not up to the task.

  5. tildeb says:

    This video addresses exactly this topic.

    • Brenno says:

      @ Tildeb may I ask what is your worldview? Also it seems to me that you seem to be skipping something here this all rises and falls on the truth of the matter. So all that stuff about Marxism wouldn’t be wrong to teach your children if it were true. The same goes with all worldviews, we could put any name in there you like Islam, atheism, Buddhism, etc they are only wrong to teach as truth if they are not truth and the opposite is also true it is wrong to say they are not truth if they indeed are. Also the claim that the information is 3rd hand is false three of the gospels are eye witness accounts Matthew mark and John and Luke’s is based on eyewitness information basically he went around collecting people’s testimonies and reported that. Also as for the lord liar lunatic the presupposition here is that if Jesus was a real man than these are your options based on the information we have about Him. Yes there are lots of possibilities probably an infinite amount but what we are looking at is plausibility, so as to the other option you put in your welcome to have that but there is no evidence anywhere to justify such belief, which then would put you in the realm of a leap of faith.

      • tildeb says:

        My worldview? I respect reality to be the arbitrator of what’s true, and we can extract this information to create knowledge that works consistently and reliably well. The epistemological method by which we can know anything about reality is called methodological naturalism.

        Using this method in the example of, say, Marxism, we very quickly discover that there are many political theories that have been exercised to some degree to produce various and variable results. To claim that one is ‘true’ is a statement of faith, not knowledge. I use the term faith to mean respect for something that is believed to be true without any means to falsify it. Assuming Marxism to be the only ‘true’ political philosophy as a truth claim can be easily falsified, so to maintain it as ‘true’ in spite of this becomes simply and only a matter of faith unsupported by reality. This dismissal of reality’s role to arbitrate claims believed to be true in spite of evidence to the contrary in reality is faith, which stands diametrically opposed to gaining reliable and consistent knowledge about reality.

        Ask yourself this question for any truth claim: Is it true, and how do we know? If your answer fails to account for all the evidence readily available, then you are cherry picking information to support a faith claim, which is intellectually dishonest. By presenting faith claims to children as if they were truth claims is intellectually dishonest and damages children to be able to trust those responsible for them. It is abhorrent parenting and anyone who practices this terrible parenting should be held in contempt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s