When God cursed Cain for killing Abel, did that curse extend to Cain's offspring, to Cain alone, or to everyone? God tells Cain: > "And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Genesis 4:11-12 ESV Later in Genesis, when tracing the genealogy of Cain's younger brother Seth, this next verse seems to indicate that the ground was cursed for everyone, not just Cain or his direct descendants? >"When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Genesis 5:28-29

Since the restoration, the LDS Church has taught that certain dark skinned people were cursed to be cut off from the presence of the Lord: > 20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto > me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they > shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, **they > were cut off from his presence**. And that their darks skins were a sign of the curse so that they could be recognized as being cursed: > 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore > cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened > their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; > wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, > that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause > a skin of blackness to come upon them. > > 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be > loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. > > 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; > for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord > spake it, and it was done. (2 Nephi 5:21-23) Today, the official stance of the church is this: > "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that > black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects > unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are > a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are > inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally > condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (Race and the Priesthood) Does this mean that the Church is disavowing that people of African descent were ever cursed and bore the sign of the curse? Or does this mean that since the curse was lifted, and in 1978 when the Preisthood was officially offered to all worthy males, that the "sign of the curse" was no longer a sign of anything except mortal heritage, and that those spirits being born with those phenotypes today are no longer born to those lines based on premortal favour?

We read in Matthew 27: 24-25: > So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children! We see that the Jews went through a turbulent history of sufferings and suppression including the holocaust. Some opine that it was a punishment which they took upon themselves by virtue of their curse against the Son of God. My question therefore is: **Does the Catholic Church believe that many generations of Jews suffered because of the curse of their forefathers at Matthew 27:25?**

Leviticus 26: > 21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I > will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. > > 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your > children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and > your high ways shall be desolate. In the curses and blessings for Israel in Leviticus 26:22, it states that wild beasts shall kill many children of the Israelites and destroy their cattle. I know this happened already but when did something like this occur in Israel, and can it be shown through scripture or other sources?

Malachi 3:6-12 (ESV): > 6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. 7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ 8 Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. 9 **You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me**, the whole nation of you. 10 Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. **And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need**. 11 I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts. 12 Then all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land of delight, says the Lord of hosts. Many Christians believe that the curse for not tithing and the blessings for tithing mentioned in Malachi 3:6-12 apply to the New Testament Church as well. In other words, they believe that Malachi 3:6-12 teaches spiritual laws (curses/blessings) whose scope encompasses both Testaments, not just the first. In their view, Christians who do not tithe would be under a curse, and those who do tithe would be able to enjoy the promised blessings. What is the **biblical basis** for the belief that curses and blessings regarding tithing in the Old Testament still apply to the New Testament Church? _____ Optional follow-up: A natural extension of this question would be to ask the same thing about every promised curse and blessing found in the Old Testament. Which Old Testament blessings/curses still find application today? As an example, Ephesians 6:1-3 comes to mind *"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (**this is the first commandment with a promise**), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”*, which is a clear New Testament validation of a blessing promised in the Old Testament (Exodus 20:12). Should we see this as evidence that *all* promised curses/blessings in the Old Testament still apply? Or should we be more cautious and approach this on a case-by-case basis?

I've been watching testimonies of people who claim to have been involved in deliverances and spiritual warfare, and the concept of ***generational curse*** is brought up quite often. It's even taught as a doctrine in certain churches (e.g. see this [Hungry Generation's sermon](https://youtu.be/LLRlbx6qzEQ)) . In simple words, a generational curse basically means that some ancestor messed up (e.g. by dabbling into witchcraft, by practicing the occult, by doing some terrible sin, etc.) and, thus, gave to the dark side a legal right to influence them and their descendants in some manner, until the right gets eventually revoked (if ever) by someone down the lineage. What is the biblical basis for this belief?

We see at Exodus 20:232-24 (NRSVCE): > "You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry; my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans." It is not uncommon for someone to curse another- sometimes with deep feeling of hurt, and sometimes out of ego. Some parents curse their children in certain situations. But, in the post-Prodigal Son scenario, one wonders whether God prefers to have the parents, build up patience with the prodigal children, or to go ahead with executing their curse. My question therefore is: What is the Catholic Church's view on curses, especially those of parents, and their after-effects.

I am wondering the following: In Genesis, 3.16, it is quite clear that God multiplies the pain of childbirth, in order to punish Eve (and all women) for eating the forbidden fruit. So, yes, this explains that childbirth is a punishment for this sin Eve committed. But then, Jesus dies for all sins of mankind, that is, all sins are forgiven. He revoked a bunch of other stuff in the old testament (thou shall not eat shrimp). However, if all sins are forgiven, why does childbirth still cause a lot of pain? Did Jesus forget this detail. Or is there another explanation?

In this answer user Mike made the following statement: > For the curse they put upon themselves was later brought to pass in > the actual **destruction of their nation** which occurred in 70 A.D. Their > **homeless position on the earth** did not end **until 1948** making the > **punishment** so very great. This possibly also includes the Holocaust (although not mentioned by name) because it directly resulted from the "homeless" position and happened before 1948. Thus my question is as follows: What Christian groups consider the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 AD, the persecutions of the Jews due to their homeless position until the creation of Israel, discrimination of the Jews in Europe, the pogroms in Imperial Russia, the Holocaust and other misfortunes the Jews suffered from Christians a punishment of God for killing Jesus Christ?

This question is a bit related to this other question , which is asking about the curse of Cain. One of the answers in this other question refers to the "Book of Moses" (part of Book of Mormon), chapter 7, verse 22 which states: > And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of > Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the > seed of Cain, **for the seed of Cain were black**, and had not place > among them. I can also see that the same chapter in "Book of Moses", verse 8 , says about Canaanites: > For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the > barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; **and there was a blackness > came upon all the children of Canaan**, that they were despised among > all people. And in 2 Nephi chapter 5, verse 21 it says: > And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore > cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened > their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; > wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, > **that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them**. **Based on these statements, I wanted to ask:** 1. Is it a belief of the Mormon church that a curse from God is the **initial origin** of all dark skin among humankind today? 2. Did God choose black skin in order to make the cursed people unappealing (as it seems to say in 2 Nephi 5:21)?

Prophesying the restoration of Israel, Jeremiah makes the following statement: > In those days they shall no longer say: ‘The fathers have eaten sour > grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ (Jer 31:29 - also see Ezek 18:2) which is explained in the next verse: > But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour > grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jer 31:30) However, in the next chapter the following statement is made: > You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of > fathers to their children after them... (Jer 32:18) This reminds of a statement made in the Ten Commandments: > I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for > the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who > hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love > me and keep my commandments. (Ex 20:5,6) In one sense therefore every person will die for his/her own sin, yet there is a possibility of carrying sin/guilt over to the next generation. Is Israel (and/or God's children) exempt from transmitting the guilt, or how should we solve this seeming paradox?

When God cursed the Earth He also cursed the serpent. >Genesis 3:14 NASB > >The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; Is the serpent specifically Satan? If not, is there a practical outworking of this curse seen in serpents today? We surely see the other curses of labor pains in childbirth and toilsome labor.

> Now Balak son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites, and Moab was terrified because there were so many people. Indeed, Moab was filled with dread because of the Israelites. > > The **Moabites** said to the elders of **Midian**, “This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.” > > So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the Euphrates River, in his native land. *(Numbers 22:2-5a, NIV)*
> On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no **Ammonite** or **Moabite** should ever be admitted into the assembly of God, because they had not met the Israelites with food and water but had hired Balaam to call a curse down on them. (Our God, however, turned the curse into a blessing.) When the people heard this law, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign descent. *(Nehemiah 13:1-3, NIV)* Why did the Israelites at the time of Nehemiah exclude the Ammonites and Moabites from entering the Temple, when it was originally the Midianites and Moabites who hired Balaam?

Is there a female demon in christain or pagan mythology who's name starts with the letter "S". In a TV documentary titled "A haunting" on Discovery, I herd her name but have forgotten. I think its "sarah" or "sera" or "seri". I don't remember correctly.

There are numerous passages that support the concept of generational curses - that children will be punished for the sins of their parents. >Exodus 20:5 , Exodus 34:7 , Numbers 14:18 , Deuteronomy 5:9
> You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, > >Jeremiah 32:18
> You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them. Great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord Almighty, There are other verses that say that a person will be treated according to their own actions and not the actions of ancestors or descendants. >Deuteronomy 24:16
>Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. > > Ezekiel 18:20,30
> The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them... > >“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. These seem to me to be in direct conflict. Has there been any scholarship or commentaries that address this difference? A Protestant response would be preferred but I would appreciate an answer from any tradition.

Christians believe that Jesus saved us by His blood. Since God is the only true God and through Jesus we have victory over Satan, it is claimed that we do not have to fear on curses. But I hear many others says and even written books saying curses have effect on our lives and we need to deal with it. Is that correct in the New Testament era? **I am looking for answers based on biblical references.**

When Jacob "blessed" his sons in Genesis 49, why does he seem to curse some of them? What kind of blessing is it to say "you will no longer excel"? Granted, the curses were meted out according to deeds, but the Bible does, ironically, state that "this is what their father said to them when he *blessed* them, giving each the *blessing* appropriate to him" (italics added). I'm curious about the original meaning of "blessing" and "blessed" -- perhaps the original word was not as restrictive?

I was having a debate with one of my friend on whether God exists, and I was in support of this statement.. Then he asked if there is a real God, then why there is so much differentiations without any deed they have done.. For instance many babies are born with disabilities and some people are born with homosexual genes, so how can they cure themselves, because it is by birth, and not a psychological disorder. As I an from a Hindu background, and I just received Lord Jesus as my Savior, (not having sufficient knowledge of bible to answer him). So can someone suggest me some verses on bible which says about these things....