?‍♂️

To paraphrase... "The sins of the father(s) or mother(s) do not carry to become those of the innocent child!!!!!"

Every child is born innocent, clean and pure, and did not choose either his or her (I do not refer to babies as "it") birth, nor lineage.

Perhaps a priest may cite religious beliefs as cause to not perform gay/ lesbian marriage, but to deny Baptism to a child is NOT the teachings I have learned.

Vor 2 Stunden sagte TheLadysGhost:

Um es mit den Worten zu sagen... "Die Sünden der Väter oder Mütter tragen nicht dazu bei, die des unschuldigen Kindes zu werden!!!!!"

 

Jedes Kind wird unschuldig, sauber und rein geboren und hat sich weder seine Geburt noch seine Abstammung ausgesucht (ich bezeichne Babys nicht als „es“).

 

Vielleicht kann ein Priester religiöse Überzeugungen als Grund dafür anführen, keine schwule/lesbische Ehe zu vollziehen, aber einem Kind die Taufe zu verweigern, ist NICHT die Lehre, die ich gelernt habe.

to come back to the baptism of children

a) baptism is a ritual of purification - this is how John (the Baptist) baptized the ADULT Jesus to "wash away" the sins from him

b) Children are born sinless and pure

-> So why does a newborn, sin-free child have to be cleansed/freed from its uncommitted sins with a ritual?

and no - there is not a single passage in the Old or New Testament that could justify this - not the slightest trace of it

yes - a sin-free child naturally also goes to heaven when it dies - no baptism is required for this

More than 40 years ago I had exactly this discussion with my catholic partner at the time - it was about marriage and future children very seriously

and no - even if she was the exact opposite of a devout person - but on the subject of "baptism" she did not move a millimeter from her position

a religious scholar of the Roman Catholic Church (here in Germany) had testified on the subject of baptism:

"..it is a purely lucrative financial business of the church - it secures itself through this compulsion towards the child which cannot contradict - the next generation of dependent and paying members..."

a baptism is not a ticket to heaven - but exclusively a sin-free life in the sense of the Christian faith...

..and no - girls are NOT born with the blemish of "original sin" - so there is no need for a cleansing ritual after their birth either

if anything, Adam and Eve committed this "original sin" TOGETHER

PS I also think "Adam" is a bit crazy anyway - it was never clear to me why he had rejected his FIRST wife - Lilith - who was "given" by God

2 hours ago, Miauzi said:

to come back to the baptism of children

In Orthodoxy (what remains of mine), Baptism of a child goes beyond a ceremonial water dunk to wash away sin. As you... and I have said, a newborn has none. I referred to "sins" as seen by many churches of the parents in the case exampled above, which do not belong to the child, regardless, and not my job description to judge the parents anyway.

The Baptism of a child is meant as a form of spiritual protection against sin (or temptations to sin, I guess), not to "wash away sin", and is a spiritual rebirth of sorts, that the parents and godparents speak for the child as accepting this.

This was the manner and spirit in which my son was Baptised.

Not to "assume", but I would think the intent of child Baptism is similar in Catholic and other Christian faiths.

Vor 54 Minuten sagte TheLadysGhost:

In der Orthodoxie (was von mir übrig geblieben ist) geht die Taufe eines Kindes über ein zeremonielles Eintauchen in Wasser hinaus, um die Sünde wegzuwaschen. Wie Sie... und ich gesagt haben, hat ein Neugeborenes keine. Ich bezog mich auf "Sünden", wie sie von vielen Kirchen der Eltern in dem oben beispielhaft dargestellten Fall gesehen werden, die dem Kind jedoch nicht gehören, und nicht meine Berufsbezeichnung, die Eltern sowieso zu beurteilen.

 

Die Taufe eines Kindes ist als eine Form des geistlichen Schutzes vor Sünde (oder Versuchungen zur Sünde, denke ich) gedacht, nicht als "Abwasch der Sünde", und ist eine Art geistliche Wiedergeburt, von der die Eltern und Paten für das Kind sprechen als dies zu akzeptieren.

 

Dies war die Art und Weise, in der mein Sohn getauft wurde.

 

Nicht "annehmen", aber ich würde denken, dass die Absicht der Kindertaufe in katholischen und anderen christlichen Glaubensrichtungen ähnlich ist.

That a baptism should serve as a protection system against an "infestation" with a sin...

..well - theology has already done various headstands in order to justify the action or non-action of a Christian church - especially when there are no statements in the book in which all truths are.

It's true that the original post is about the "sin" of both parents in refusing baptism to a newborn child.

Well - at that point the child doesn't care whether it is baptized or not - neither will the trinity of Father-Son-Holy_Spirit - because through his work the child's soul is immaculate and does not need cleansing (washing off the sins)...

..who cares -> are the parents themselves.

It is for their peace of mind and that is being denied them by the priests of their own denomination.

Have they violated their own "laws" which, according to their dogma, are recorded in the Bible?

No - because the baptism of a newborn is not even part of the Bible!

But of course it is morally reprehensible to introduce something essential like infant baptism - to make it a central element of this religion and then to use it as an instrument of power against ultimately defenseless members of this community.

For me in D-Land it has a completely different dimension:

The official churches - that's what the Catholic and Protestant churches are called here - have various special rights - which even break our constitution.

Both churches are among other things the largest employers in the health and care sector - i.e. they operate hospitals, retirement and nursing homes. They are paid 100% as state sources - but the workers and employees do not have the same rights as in all other companies or institutions in the country - regardless of whether they are operated by the state, the municipality or private-sector corporations.

For example, they are forbidden to strike for their rights (e.g. for higher wages) - although the right to strike has quasi-constitutional status.

A Catholic employee can be fired without notice if he divorces his spouse - whereby the law only applies to "civil" marriages concluded at the registry office.

--

Yes - the Christian churches here are a state within a state - in essential parts they are not subject to normal state jurisdiction - just like labor law.

But beyond that, they claim other rights -> the suspension of criminal prosecution, for example, in the case of abuse of children and young people.

They decide whether they want to pursue the "thing" themselves and what happens to the perpetrator and the victim - completely outside the state's monopoly on violence and justice.

They do that in other countries too - but here in D-Land the churches have withdrawn from the state further than in any other country with a Christian main religion.

--

sorry - if this has become so extensive

5 hours ago, Miauzi said:

 

PS I also think "Adam" is a bit crazy anyway - it was never clear to me why he had rejected his FIRST wife - Lilith - who was "given" by God
 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

um noch mal auf die Taufe von Kinder zurück zu kommen

a) die Taufe ist ein Ritual der Reinigung - so hat Johannes (der Täufer) den ERWACHSENEN Jesus getauft um die Sünden von ihm "abzuwaschen"

b) Kinder werden frei von Sünde und rein geboren

-> warum also muss ein neugeborenes sündenfreies Kind mit einem Ritual von seinen nicht begangenen Sünden gereinigt/befreit werden

 

und nein - es gint keine einzige Stelle im Alten wie im Neuen Testament was dies rechtfertigen könnte - nicht den Hauch einer Spur davon

ja - ein sündenfreies Kind kommt natürlich auch in den Himmel wenn es stirbt - dazu bedarf es keiner Taufe

 

ich habe vor über 40 Jahren genau diese Diskussion mit meiner damaligen katholischen Gefährtin geführt - da ging es sehr ernsthaft um Ehe und zukünftige Kinder

und nein - auch wenn sie das genaue Gegenteil eines strenggläubigen Menschen war - aber bei dem Thema "Taufe" rückte sie keinen Millimeter von ihrer Position ab

 

ein Religions-Wissenschaftler der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche (hier in D-Land) hatte beim Thema Taufe ausgesagt:

"..es ist ein reines lukratives finanzielles Geschäft der Kirche - sichert sie sich doch über diesen Zwang gegenüber dem Kind was ja nicht widersprechen kann - die nächste Generation von abhängigen und zahlenden Mitgliedern..."

 

eine Taufe ist kein Freifahrts-Schein in den Himmel - sondern ausschliesslich ein im Sinne des christlichen Glaubens sündenfreies Leben...

..und nein - Mädchen werden NICHT mit dem Makel der "Erbsünde" geboren - also braucht es auch dabei nach deren Geburt kein Reinigungs-Ritual

wenn überhaupt dann haben Adam und Eva diese "Erbsünde" GEMEINSAM begangen

 

P.S. ausserdem halte ich "Adam" sowieso für ein bissel bekloppt - mir war nie klar zu machen warum er seine von Gott "gestellte" ERSTE Frau - nämlich Lilith - abgelehnt hatte

 

> Both of you have valid arguments but I think that the priest's refusal to baptize a child was rather on local level. There were other examples of child baptism in our country in which priests did it to both homosexual and lesbian couples. In those cases the children were adopted and in the case of this lesbian couple, the child was conceived in "laboratory". He probably do not support such unnatural conceiving.

> As for Lillith, I have read that according to some Babylonian mythology she was demonic; succubus that killed children and seduced men to take their souls. Well, who needs wife like that

23 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

That a baptism should serve as a protection system against an "infestation" with a sin...

Generally, I find it a waste of time trying to explain anything regarding religion to a non-believer, or possibly selfproclaimed religious expert.

I am Orthodox. I stated the beliefs or Orthodoxy regarding Baptism of children. I honestly do not care that my religion is not good enough for you. I suggest that you start your own.

Respond as you may, I am not filling Eva's page with more.

9 minutes ago, TheLadysGhost said:

Generally, I find it a waste of time trying to explain anything regarding religion to a non-believer, or possibly selfproclaimed religious expert.

 

I am Orthodox. I stated the beliefs or Orthodoxy regarding Baptism of children. I honestly do not care that my religion is not good enough for you. I suggest that you start your own.

 

Respond as you may, I am not filling Eva's page with more.

> You are very smart and intellectual lady and I really like your arguments. My English is not good as yours and Miauzi's but I think that you two argued from different angles. I am not even half informed about Christianity and religions in general as you guys are but the way you two explained things are good to me, unless there was some insulting elements in the arguments.

Vor 3 Minuten sagte Evaloves4:

 

> Sie haben beide stichhaltige Argumente, aber ich denke, dass die Weigerung des Priesters, ein Kind zu taufen, eher auf lokaler Ebene lag. Es gab andere Beispiele für Kindertaufe in unserem Land, wo Priester sie sowohl bei homosexuellen als auch bei lesbischen Paaren durchführten. In diesen Fällen wurden die Kinder adoptiert und im Fall dieses lesbischen Paares wurde der Choled im "Labor" gezeugt. Wahrscheinlich unterstützt er eine solche unnatürliche Empfängnis nicht.

 

> Was Lillith betrifft, so habe ich gelesen, dass sie laut babylonischer Mythologie dämonisch war; Sukkubusse, die Kinder töteten und Männer dazu verführten, ihre Seelen zu nehmen. Na, wer braucht schon so eine Frau

and the story of Lilith was certainly written down by men - well then it's also completely true

?

I wonder anyway how much "Babylonian" mythology is in Judaism and thus also (Old Testament) in Christianity.

But when I "pricked up my ears" (synonymous with "I'm becoming attentive") a good 20 years ago -> in a TV documentary about the history of Judaism, the fact that the "early" Jews were poly-theiistic was discussed - how the Greeks or Babylonians had a whole pantheon of gods.

And that "Jehofa" initially played a very subordinate role - he was even "married".

What do you see/learn from it -> the views about a person or a being are changeable in the "stream of time" - they change - "good" and "bad" are ultimately interchangeable terms

Films or series like this help you to let go of something

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Leben_des_Brian

or

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Omens

or

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_(Film)

Vor 14 Minuten sagte TheLadysGhost:

Im Allgemeinen halte ich es für Zeitverschwendung, einem Ungläubigen oder möglicherweise selbsternannten Religionsexperten irgendetwas über Religion zu erklären.

 

Ich bin orthodox. Ich habe den Glauben oder die Orthodoxie in Bezug auf die Taufe von Kindern dargelegt. Es ist mir ehrlich gesagt egal, dass meine Religion nicht gut genug für dich ist. Ich schlage vor, dass Sie Ihr eigenes gründen.

 

Antworte wie du magst, ich fülle Evas Seite nicht mit mehr.

I had these connections explained to me by a Benedictine monk, among others - who studied theology (in Salzburg) for tens of years - I don't think of something like that myself

The sources of this criticism come from scholars of their own religion!

Why did I have this explained to me? -> Because I wanted to know about the connections!

It's pretty bold to accuse me of their religion being "not good enough".

A part of the believers of their own religious community is this -> "not good enough"

why do members of the Catholic Church, for example, demand the abolition of celibacy for priests - if

this cannot even be substantiated with the Bible itself

I could stand up and ignore these conflicts within the various churches.

Yes - I have a different worldview - but why do they let me in everyday life

in peace and respect the division of church and state - which is one of the most important foundations for people to live together.

As long as such organizations claim a legal vacuum for themselves and at the same time point the moral index finger at people like me - as long as I deal with things like double standards, distortion of my own dogmas, etc.

I myself had to live under a dictatorship for the first third of my life.

Not really debating the issue at hand, just found it interesting that there are different interpretations of what, to me, seems to be clear, regarding the purpose of baptism.

John 3:5 (King James Bible)

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. ³Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ⁴Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? ⁵Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ⁶That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. ⁸The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Second for those who are Catholic:

However, though all sins are removed (by baptism -sp), there remains, as an effect of Original Sin, the inclination to sin that is called concupiscence. This inclination to sin shows itself in what is sometimes referred to as a darkening of the mind and a weakening of the will, that is, the inability to know clearly the right or wrong of an action and/or the lack of strength to resist temptation and always to do the right thing no matter how hard this is. The effects of Original Sin need not harm us so long as we seek strength to resist them through the Sacrament of Penance, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, prayer, a deepening spirituality, growth in virtue, and a wholehearted dependence on God.

(source: https://www.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/why-is-baptism-important-what-change-does-it-make-in-me/

However, to be clear, I am likely a heretic catholic because my philosophy is summed up in this movie clip.   For those that don't want to watch it, basically religion is a personal journey and if it gives you comfort to believe in God, then do so, that ain't so bad. 

1 hour ago, TheLadysGhost said:

Generally, I find it a waste of time trying to explain anything regarding religion to a non-believer, or possibly selfproclaimed religious expert.

 

I am Orthodox. I stated the beliefs or Orthodoxy regarding Baptism of children. I honestly do not care that my religion is not good enough for you. I suggest that you start your own.

 

Respond as you may, I am not filling Eva's page with more.

Echoing what Eva said, I, too, find your counter points or alternative views interesting and illuminating.   I welcome civil discourse, though on the subject of religion, I am no expert, so we will likely not reach some level of agreement other than agree to disagree.

22 minutes ago, steelpanther24 said:

Not really debating the issue at hand, just found it interesting that there are different interpretations of what, to me, seems to be clear, regarding the purpose of baptism.

 

John 3:5 (King James Bible)

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. ³Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ⁴Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? ⁵Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ⁶That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. ⁸The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

Second for those who are Catholic:

However, though all sins are removed (by baptism -sp), there remains, as an effect of Original Sin, the inclination to sin that is called concupiscence. This inclination to sin shows itself in what is sometimes referred to as a darkening of the mind and a weakening of the will, that is, the inability to know clearly the right or wrong of an action and/or the lack of strength to resist temptation and always to do the right thing no matter how hard this is. The effects of Original Sin need not harm us so long as we seek strength to resist them through the Sacrament of Penance, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, prayer, a deepening spirituality, growth in virtue, and a wholehearted dependence on God.

(source: https://www.archspm.org/faith-and-discipleship/catholic-faith/why-is-baptism-important-what-change-does-it-make-in-me/

 

However, to be clear, I am likely a heretic catholic because my philosophy is summed up in this movie clip.   For those that don't want to watch it, basically religion is a personal journey and if it gives you comfort to believe in God, then do so, that ain't so bad. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

> My Prince is very well informed about theology because his father graduated on Protestant theology seminary in our country and he also had master of theology degree. He was guest teacher in Systematic theology (Christology) and Christian ethics. Why am I saying this? It is because as a protestant theologian he wouldn't question if the baby of this couple should be baptized or not. My Prince says that according to his father and some theologians baptism is the act of god and the priests are merely tools who should conduct the will of god, not own interpretation of the god's sacraments. Even RC was divided among themselves about blessing of the guns and weapons during the civil war in our country. According to the Bible (New testament) Jesus was against any kind of violence and hate and yet, most RC priests blessed the weapons, encouraged people to go to war and spread hate against Serbs. Damn. Must stop now since am seriously dancing at the edge of breaking some LL rules.

Vor 5 Minuten sagte Evaloves4:

> Mein Prinz ist sehr gut über Theologie informiert, weil sein Vater das Seminar für protestantische Theologie in unserem Land absolvierte und auch einen Master of Theology-Abschluss hatte. Er war Gastdozent für Systematische Theologie (Christologie) und Christliche Ethik. Warum sage ich das? Denn als evangelischer Theologe würde er nicht in Frage stellen, ob das Baby dieses Paares getauft werden soll oder nicht. Mein Prinz sagt, dass laut seinem Vater und einigen Theologen die Taufe eine Tat Gottes ist und die Priester nur Werkzeuge sind, die den Willen Gottes ausführen sollen, nicht die eigene Auslegung der Sakramente Gottes. Sogar RC war während des Bürgerkriegs in unserem Land über die Segnung der Kanonen und Waffen gespalten. Laut Bibel (Neues Testament) war Jesus gegen jede Art von Gewalt und Hass und doch segneten die meisten RC-Priester die Waffen, ermutigten die Menschen, in den Krieg zu ziehen und Hass gegen Serben zu verbreiten. Verdammt. Muss jetzt aufhören, da ich ernsthaft am Rande tanze, einige LL-Regeln zu brechen.

Since you mention that about blessing weapons...

..I've been living in the world for 60 years - my grandfather fought in the Navy of the German Emperor during World War I and was involved in the first U-boat war on the Atlantic.

There are many documentaries and feature films about World War II - but even the first one was cruel and bloody.

Of course my grandfather was baptized and a devout Christian when the war started.

Then he saw in the war how the submarines were loaded with torpedoes that priests had previously blessed.

However, these torpedoes were not used to shoot at British warships - but civilian merchant and passenger ships of all nations were sunk with them (unrestricted submarine warfare from 1917) - mostly innocent Christians.

This perversion of his faith he experienced caused him to leave the Church and he has never said a good word about a priest again.

Even though this war has been over for more than 100 years - these events still tremble in our family today.

8 hours ago, Miauzi said:

Since you mention that about blessing weapons...

..I've been living in the world for 60 years - my grandfather fought in the Navy of the German Emperor during World War I and was involved in the first U-boat war on the Atlantic.

There are many documentaries and feature films about World War II - but even the first one was cruel and bloody.

Of course my grandfather was baptized and a devout Christian when the war started.

Then he saw in the war how the submarines were loaded with torpedoes that priests had previously blessed.

However, these torpedoes were not used to shoot at British warships - but civilian merchant and passenger ships of all nations were sunk with them (unrestricted submarine warfare from 1917) - mostly innocent Christians.

This perversion of his faith he experienced caused him to leave the Church and he has never said a good word about a priest again.

Even though this war has been over for more than 100 years - these events still tremble in our family today.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Da Du das mit dem Segnen von Waffen erwähnst...

..ich lebe schon seit 60 jahren auf der Welt - mein Grossvater kämpfte noch im ersten Weltkrieg in der Marine des deutschen Kaisers und war in den ersten U-Bootkrieg auf dem Atlantik involviert.

Über den im 2. Weltkrieg gibt es viele Dokus bzw. Spielfime - aber bereits im ersten war es grausam und blutig.

Natürlich war mein Grossvater getauft und ein gläubiger Christ als der Krieg losging.

Dann sah er im Krieg wie die U-Boote mit Torpedos beladen wurde die Priester  vorher gesegnet hatten.

 

Mit diesen Torpedos wurde aber nicht auf Kriegsschiffe der Briten geschossen - sondern damit wurden zivile Handels- und Passagier-Schiffe aller Nationen versenkt (uneingeschränkter U-Boot-Kieg ab 1917) - in der Regel unschuldige Christen.

Diese erlebte Perversion seines Glaubens hat ihn veranlasst die Kirche zu verlassen und er hat nie wieder ein gutes Wort über einen Priester von sich gegeben.

Auch wenn dieser Krieg schon mehr als 100 jahren vorbei ist - diese Ereignisse beben in unserer Familie bis heute nach.

 

> I was born when civil war ended in our country so I do not know anything, but my parents were adult and they have similar opinion about the church and the war - Christian faith and the war and violence doesn't go along. I was pissed off at this priest because I sincerely believe he hates or is against gay couples and/or their child conceived in the way that is not natural. If he is so loyal to the doctrine of his church, then he should follow the words of pope Francis who said that gay love is true love too and that there is nothing wrong about it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54627625

What "sin" is that with the lesbian couple?

@Evaloves4By the way https://www.euronews.com/2022/10/04/slovenia-becomes-first-east-european-country-to-legalise-same-sex-marriage-and-adoption

17 minutes ago, worik said:

@Evaloves4By the way https://www.euronews.com/2022/10/04/slovenia-becomes-first-east-european-country-to-legalise-same-sex-marriage-and-adoption

> Thanks, Mrs. worik.

14 hours ago, worik said:

What "sin" is that with the lesbian couple?

To be clear, I did not offer an opinion on if the child should or shouldn't be baptized, just the role of baptism.   The debate of  "is it a sin" is a long one and likely over the limit here on LL.   So if yours is a general question, then I am afraid you will have to seek someone other than me, as my view on my Christianity is not exactly in keeping with my RC roots.   In my view, that question is one that is answerable only by the individual and God.