A question about Catholicism . . .

[Tarrou]

that_fairy

Saying that a situation doesn't happen very often isn't a good reason for not having every reasonable safeguard against it. The vast majority of people don't try to carry explosives or guns onto planes; however we have stringent safeguards against it because when it *does* happen, it is devastating.

Might I point out, though, that frequently, people forget the 'reasonable' part of 'reasonable safeguard'? For example, it was recently reported that British Airways has a policy against seating adult male passengers next to minors whom they are not acquainted with. Why? Because apparently British Airways believes that all men are A.) potential child molesters and B.) potentially so profoundly stupid as to molest a child on an airplane where said molestation would be immediately obvious to anyone sitting near them. The policy has no basis in common sense; instead it's an exercise in trading rational thought for fear-mongering and rank sexism.

It's also worth noting that when it comes to members of the clergy molesting kids, it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue for the Christian denominations that don't force their ministers/priests into celibacy. This suggests, at least to my mind, that the issue isn't that Catholic priests are male, but rather that their church forces them into a condition that is intrinsically at odds with human nature. In fact, I've gleaned, from purely anecdotal evidence, mind you, that some men enter the priesthood because they see its requirement of celibacy as a way of avoiding (as opposed to seeking actual help for) the unnatural desires that will, eventually, drive many of these men to molest the youngest members of their flock.  

[CCubed]

Berezi

CCubed

Women don't need to be priests; no i'm not being sexist, just wait. Women already have great responsibilities in the church. No one says women aren't important, I mean, Jesus took Mary directly into heaven, that's saying something. He also saved the woman's life when the pharisees brought her to him and asked him if they should kill her for committing adultery. However, Jesus left the leadership of the church in Peter's hands. He also gave women just as much responsibility. Women are nuns and married to Jesus, and Men are priests and married to the church. So it's an example of marriage. Nuns teach in the diocesan schools, they often are a better example than the priest since they see more children than the priest does most of the time.

What, then, do you say when God gifts a woman with the abilities to be a priest? Should she waste that gift because that's not her typical gendered role?

Quote:

Also, the church is referred to as She because in the days after Christ, they referred to the church as "Alma Mater." Some of you graduates will recognize that. Alma Mater in english means Loving mother (It's latin). So thus, the church is referred to as feminine. However, if you think about it, what exactly do priests do? let's do a analysis.

Nuns: Raise money, teach, love, are examples, devote their life to christ.

Priests: give rites, mass, sacraments, matrimony.

So if you think about it, he made it so that the priests need the nuns to operate as much as the nuns need the priests. Yet another perfect example of how God made us to be dependent on others in some capacity. (i'll see if i can't find that painting, it's of two angels, male and female, where they each have one wing, and need each other to fly razz )

And if God gifts the man with the gifts needed to be a nun, and a woman with the gifts needed to be a priest, is that somehow wrong? Is it wrong if a man is made as a person with a natural inclination towards nurturing for that man to be a stay-at-home dad? Is it wrong for a woman to be a working mom if God calls her there?

Yes, people are dependent on each other, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think it's safe to lump people in gendered categories like that. God frequently breaks them, and sometimes against our will. Until recently, I wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. However, God's calling me to be a doctor (I think). I may still become a mother, and I'll be a darn good one if God calls me to that, but I will probably still maintain a medical career alongside that. Career maintaining had honestly never come into the picture as a long-term goal. God changed my plans, though they don't fit within certain gendered categories (I know I'm stuck with the mother thing, but the stay-at-home versus career mom thing I'm not).

A. Okay, what traits or attributes do priests have? What specific traits or gifts or talents could God give a priest? And you are saying that there is no other way to use them as well?


B. Why does it matter? What exactly do priests do that women can't? Women can give out communion, women can serve, and women can be great leaders for the church. Look at the Fatima miracle, those girls and the little boy made a huge difference in our church. So, while God didn't give the priesthood to women, he gave many other things that men don't have. For Example:

1. On average, women have a higher I.Q.
2. On average, women always win the fights.
3. On average, a man reported that a women saved his butt before.
4. On average, most men trust their wives to give them all knowledge they require


C. To compare men and women, is to compare a battleship with an apple. Men and women are radically different, in more ways then brain power, and they have each been given special qualities that the other doesn't have.

D. If, and only if, a woman was give traits that generally appear in priests, why can't she use them in a way other than as a priest? Why not be a nun?

E. Jesus, God, gave the church to Peter. Peter was our first example of pope and priest.

source: Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."  

[Berezi]

CCubed

A. Okay, what traits or attributes do priests have? What specific traits or gifts or talents could God give a priest? And you are saying that there is no other way to use them as well?

The ability to nurture, to teach, to communicate, to lead, to love others sacrificially and to serve, for example.
No, I'm not saying that if someone has these things, they must be a priest. They must, however, use these things in the manner that God calls them to. Both men and women have these things.

If God called a man to use those gifts outside of the priesthood, would you have something to say about that?

If God called a woman to use those gifts in the priesthood, would you have anything to say about that?

Quote:

B. Why does it matter? What exactly do priests do that women can't? Women can give out communion, women can serve, and women can be great leaders for the church. Look at the Fatima miracle, those girls and the little boy made a huge difference in our church.

I'm not Catholic, for one thing, so this is a little unfamiliar ground for me. I do, however, know that priests, like pastors, are the leaders of their congregation. They instruct the entire congregation.
Also, I apologize for not being so clear about my beliefs (I'm Protestant).

Quote:

So, while God didn't give the priesthood to women, he gave many other things that men don't have. For Example:

1. On average, women have a higher I.Q.
2. On average, women always win the fights.
3. On average, a man reported that a women saved his butt before.
4. On average, most men trust their wives to give them all knowledge they require

How does this infringe on a woman's suitability for leadership? How does this prohibit her from being in the priesthood? I know that men and women have different qualities that complement each other (though I'd be willing to debate what those qualities are and how solid that is for each individual man and woman), but that doesn't mean that women shouldn't be leaders. In fact, I think if you argue from the point of them being different, you ought to have more of a reason to put women in leadership simply because their different brain would get a different insight that a man might not pick up on that could be instructive to the church as a whole.

Quote:

C. To compare men and women, is to compare a battleship with an apple. Men and women are radically different, in more ways then brain power, and they have each been given special qualities that the other doesn't have.

Actually, on average, there are more differences in men-as-a-group or women-as-a-group than there are differences between men and women. If you compared two women to each other, you're more likely to find that battleship to an apple comparison than if you compared a man and a woman.

I think what is true, though, is that in a couple God has made for each other each spouse will have qualities the other doesn't have. What's debatable is why. I don't think it's all due to gender. I think it's due to the personalities God gave us.

Quote:

D. If, and only if, a woman was give traits that generally appear in priests, why can't she use them in a way other than as a priest? Why not be a nun?

Well, that's a legitimate question until you factor in God's calling. If God calls her to be a priest, to be a nun would be to disobey God. If He called her to be a nun, to be a priest would be to disobey God.

Quote:

E. Jesus, God, gave the church to Peter. Peter was our first example of pope and priest.

source: Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

So women can't be a part of this church or a part of the making of it just because Peter was a man?

You are familiar with the women saints, who in their deeds continued the legacy of the church built on Peter. Is their piece insignificant because they were born with different reproductive organs than Peter?

How about the apostle Junia (found in Romans 16:6-8 )? Some people translated the name Junias, ignoring the fact that it is a woman's name. Some manuscripts even have Julia there. To top it off, a good deal of modern scholars realize that the woman who is being referred to as an apostle is, well, a woman. Is her work in buliding the church not instrumental anymore (and considering Paul cites her work, I really don't think that's a solid argument) because she was called to be a woman apostle?  

[Monergism]

CCubed

E. Jesus, God, gave the church to Peter. Peter was our first example of pope and priest.

source: Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The passage has very little support or none at all for this position.

Berezi

How does this infringe on a woman's suitability for leadership? How does this prohibit her from being in the priesthood? I know that men and women have different qualities that complement each other (though I'd be willing to debate what those qualities are and how solid that is for each individual man and woman), but that doesn't mean that women shouldn't be leaders.

The Apostle Paul does bring up this issue in 1st Corinthians 14:34-35

1st Corinthians 14:
(V.34) The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
(v.35) If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Paul is speaking about the role of women in public worship, the implication being that men were to lead in worship. Paul indicates that his instruction for Corinth was followed in all the churches, thus emphasizing the universality of the Christian community. All the churches were composed of "saints" (those set apart for God), and should be governed by the same principle of orderly conduct. The command seems absolute: Women were not to do any public speaking in the church. This restriction was not to be construed as demoting women, since the expressions "subject themselves" and "their own husbands" are to be interpreted as simply consistent with God's order of administration (cf. 11:7-8; Eph 5:21-33). "The Law says" must refer to the law as set forth in such places as Gen 3:16; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22; 1 Tim 1:12; Tit 2:5. A woman's request for knowledge was not to be denied, since she was a human being equal to the man. Her questions could be answered at home rather than by asking her husband in the public service and so possibly interrupting the sermon.

Berezi

How about the apostle Junia (found in Romans 16:6-8 )? Some people translated the name Junias, ignoring the fact that it is a woman's name. Some manuscripts even have Julia there. To top it off, a good deal of modern scholars realize that the woman who is being referred to as an apostle is, well, a woman. Is her work in buliding the church not instrumental anymore (and considering Paul cites her work, I really don't think that's a solid argument) because she was called to be a woman apostle?

Junia is "youthful" in Latin and its true that the name is feminine. However, the word "apostle" (apostoloß) can hardly mean "messenger" here (cf. Php 2:25), and it goes without saying that Andronicus and Junia do not belong in the circle of the Twelve.  

[Berezi]

Baptist Holman

The Apostle Paul does bring up this issue in 1st Corinthians 14:34-35

1st Corinthians 14:
(V.34) The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
(v.35) If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

At the time, women weren't allowed to speak culturally and had to ask their husbands permission to ask any questions. That's got a big part to do with it. You kind of made the same point below. The thing is, it was disruptive to worship.

Quote:

Paul is speaking about the role of women in public worship, the implication being that men were to lead in worship. Paul indicates that his instruction for Corinth was followed in all the churches, thus emphasizing the universality of the Christian community. All the churches were composed of "saints" (those set apart for God), and should be governed by the same principle of orderly conduct. The command seems absolute: Women were not to do any public speaking in the church. This restriction was not to be construed as demoting women, since the expressions "subject themselves" and "their own husbands" are to be interpreted as simply consistent with God's order of administration (cf. 11:7-8; Eph 5:21-33). "The Law says" must refer to the law as set forth in such places as Gen 3:16; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22; 1 Tim 1:12; Tit 2:5.

Now this one I have a more difficult time wrestling with, because scripture does seem so absolute. But, I know that it can't be that absolute. God's calling me to a leadership position of sorts, medical missions, and I know women whom God has called to be pastors of congregations, and God was pretty absolute about that. I'm absolutely positive I haven't misheard God, and these women are as well.

The thing I'm trying to refute isn't necesssarily complementarianism, it's the basis that it has in gender. Differences between women and men just isn't enough, considering the simiilarities outweigh the differences by far.

I ask these questions because I wrestle with them myself. I'm not quite that egalitarian.

Also, there is a scriptural basis for egalitarianism, as well. There's the famous "there is neither man nor woman nor greek nor jew nor slave nor free." bit. There's more, but I'm running on 3 hours of sleep so give me some time. =)

Quote:

A woman's request for knowledge was not to be denied, since she was a human being equal to the man. Her questions could be answered at home rather than by asking her husband in the public service and so possibly interrupting the sermon.

That's generally the point I wanted to make. The thing is, in the culture women couldn't speak without their husband's permission. Not to mention, men sat on one side and women on the other. Then they're shouting these questions across the room instead of asking the questions themselves.

Berezi

Junia is "youthful" in Latin and its true that the name is feminine. However, the word "apostle" (apostoloß) can hardly mean "messenger" here (cf. Php 2:25), and it goes without saying that Andronicus and Junia do not belong in the circle of the Twelve.

1) It's definetly apostolos. (sorry, had to).
2) Paul and Barnabas are referred to as "apostles" (apostolos) as well. Does that still not apply to them because they were not in the circle of the Twelve?
3) It does mean messenger or sent ones. It comes from the verb apostellow (ow=omega), which means to send (as in a delegate to represent oneself, not FedEX. That's Pempow). When a messenger was sent in those days, whatever you did to the messenger you did to the person who sent them. This term is signficant and does not lose its significance outside of the Twelve.

And I hope you know that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you or CCubed. I'm kind of thinking through these things. I do know that if I take the complementarian side, it won't be because women aren't capable, and if I take the egalitarian side, it won't be because I am too focused on the point that women are capable.  

[Monergism]

Berezi

Baptist Holman

The Apostle Paul does bring up this issue in 1st Corinthians 14:34-35

1st Corinthians 14:
(V.34) The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
(v.35) If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

At the time, women weren't allowed to speak culturally and had to ask their husbands permission to ask any questions. That's got a big part to do with it. You kind of made the same point below. The thing is, it was disruptive to worship.

There is a problem with that.

1st Corinthians 14:26-40

(v.26) What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (v.27) If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. (v.28 ) But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. (v.29) Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. (v.30) If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. (v.31) For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, (v.32) and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

(v.33) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, (v.34) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (v.35) If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

(v.36) Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? (v.37) If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. (v.38 ) If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (v.39) So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. (v.40) But all things should be done decently and in order.

The context tells us that Paul is addressing to "all the churches of the saints" and not only the Corinth Christian community. There is no indication that Paul is addressing only to the Corinths.

Berezi

Baptist Holman

Paul is speaking about the role of women in public worship, the implication being that men were to lead in worship. Paul indicates that his instruction for Corinth was followed in all the churches, thus emphasizing the universality of the Christian community. All the churches were composed of "saints" (those set apart for God), and should be governed by the same principle of orderly conduct. The command seems absolute: Women were not to do any public speaking in the church. This restriction was not to be construed as demoting women, since the expressions "subject themselves" and "their own husbands" are to be interpreted as simply consistent with God's order of administration (cf. 11:7-8; Eph 5:21-33). "The Law says" must refer to the law as set forth in such places as Gen 3:16; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22; 1 Tim 1:12; Tit 2:5.

Now this one I have a more difficult time wrestling with, because scripture does seem so absolute. But, I know that it can't be that absolute. God's calling me to a leadership position of sorts, medical missions, and I know women whom God has called to be pastors of congregations, and God was pretty absolute about that. I'm absolutely positive I haven't misheard God, and these women are as well.

The thing I'm trying to refute isn't necesssarily complementarianism, it's the basis that it has in gender. Differences between women and men just isn't enough, considering the simiilarities outweigh the differences by far.

I ask these questions because I wrestle with them myself. I'm not quite that egalitarian.

Also, there is a scriptural basis for egalitarianism, as well. There's the famous "there is neither man nor woman nor greek nor jew nor slave nor free." bit. There's more, but I'm running on 3 hours of sleep so give me some time. =)

Women leaders controversy isn't really big deal to me. So, all I can do is inform you and I'll leave the rest to you.

Berezi

1) It's definetly apostolos. (sorry, had to).
2) Paul and Barnabas are referred to as "apostles" (apostolos) as well. Does that still not apply to them because they were not in the circle of the Twelve?
3) It does mean messenger or sent ones. It comes from the verb apostellow (ow=omega), which means to send (as in a delegate to represent oneself, not FedEX. That's Pempow). When a messenger was sent in those days, whatever you did to the messenger you did to the person who sent them. This term is signficant and does not lose its significance outside of the Twelve.

Also, an apostle was a witness to the resurrection of Christ, sent by him to make disciples of all nations. If you are suggesting that perhaps Andronicus and Junia are in the circle of the Twelve. I think you are taking the passage way to literal. Its a good argument but I just don't agree with it.

Berezi

And I hope you know that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you or CCubed. I'm kind of thinking through these things. I do know that if I take the complementarian side, it won't be because women aren't capable, and if I take the egalitarian side, it won't be because I am too focused on the point that women are capable.

I think the reason why women are forbidden from speaking in public worship is because the Fall of Adam and Eve. God gave different roles to both man and woman. These roles will apply to us until we die and be with the Lord. I wouldn't worry too much about this controversy if I were you. There are many ways around this leadership problem for women.

Don't worry about it. wink

May God help us follow the way of truth. Rejoice! For we are servants of the Most High God. Amen. heart  

[Berezi]

Baptist Holman

There is a problem with that...
The context tells us that Paul is addressing to "all the churches of the saints" and not only the Corinth Christian community. There is no indication that Paul is addressing only to the Corinths.

I know this was at least a problem in the Corinthian church community, and I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to say that this structure was not unique to the Corinthians, but I could be wrong on that. I only have rudimentary knowledge of the culture at the time and we've reached the end of it.

Berezi

Women leaders controversy isn't really big deal to me. So, all I can do is inform you and I'll leave the rest to you.

Well, considering I am a woman called into leadership (though granted not as a pastor), it is a bit more of a deal to me.

Berezi

1) It's definetly apostolos. (sorry, had to).
2) Paul and Barnabas are referred to as "apostles" (apostolos) as well. Does that still not apply to them because they were not in the circle of the Twelve?
3) It does mean messenger or sent ones. It comes from the verb apostellow (ow=omega), which means to send (as in a delegate to represent oneself, not FedEX. That's Pempow). When a messenger was sent in those days, whatever you did to the messenger you did to the person who sent them. This term is signficant and does not lose its significance outside of the Twelve.

Quote:

Also, an apostle was a witness to the resurrection of Christ, sent by him to make disciples of all nations. If you are suggesting that perhaps Andronicus and Junia are in the circle of the Twelve. I think you are taking the passage way to literal. Its a good argument but I just don't agree with it.

Nope. Pay attention. Paul and Barnabas are talked about as apostles. They are not part of the circle of the Twelve. Are they still witnesses to Jesus' ressurrection even though they're not in the circle of the Twelve? The answer is yes. Why, then, can't Andronicus and Junia be apostles without being part of the circle of the Twelve? (I definetly wasn't trying to say that they were. I was trying to say that the term "apostle" is not unique to the circle of the Twelve).

Quote:

I think the reason why women are forbidden from speaking in public worship is because the Fall of Adam and Eve. God gave different roles to both man and woman. These roles will apply to us until we die and be with the Lord. I wouldn't worry too much about this controversy if I were you. There are many ways around this leadership problem for women.

Those roles did come about in the Fall. But wasn't it Christ who redeemed us from the consequences of it (sin)? Are those roles out of Christ's power to change?

Quote:

Don't worry about it. wink

May God help us follow the way of truth. Rejoice! For we are servants of the Most High God. Amen. heart

Amen to that! =)

P.s. Yay for So-Baps! heart (Is so-bap, too).  

[Monergism]

Berezi

Those roles did come about in the Fall. But wasn't it Christ who redeemed us from the consequences of it (sin)? Are those roles out of Christ's power to change?

Christ came to fulfill the Law of God so that we would not have to face punishment for are sins. However, the curse from the Fall of Adam and Eve is with us until we die (death is part of the curse) because of are sinful nature.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Baptist Holman

Christ came to fulfill the Law of God so that we would not have to face punishment for are sins. However, the curse from the Fall of Adam and Eve is with us until we die (death is part of the curse) because of are sinful nature.

No, it's not.  

[Monergism]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Baptist Holman

Christ came to fulfill the Law of God so that we would not have to face punishment for are sins. However, the curse from the Fall of Adam and Eve is with us until we die (death is part of the curse) because of are sinful nature.

No, it's not.

Look again.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Baptist Holman

Look again.

And yet, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they did not die. In fact, Adam had a good several hundred years of life left before he finally died.

This can only lead us to the conclusion that the 'death' that God was talking about was the spiritual death caused by the seperation of man and God, or, put simpley, sin.  

[Monergism]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Baptist Holman

Look again.

And yet, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they did not die. In fact, Adam had a good several hundred years of life left before he finally died.

This can only lead us to the conclusion that the 'death' that God was talking about was the spiritual death caused by the separation of man and God, or, put simpley, sin.

I agree to a certain point. But is it literal or figurative language? Perhaps both?

John Gill Commentary

for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die" {z}; which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Ro 6:23.

Adam Clarke Commentary

Thou shalt surely die. moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.

 

[ioioouiouiouio]

I would agree, but for the fact that, when we die (assuming that weare blameless in the eyes of the Lord), then our souls are essentially re-integrated into the heavenly fold. That is to say that, we gain a closeness to God that is impossible without the leaving of our physical bodies. I believe that physical death was something that has laways been apart of God's plan, and it was simply the 'next step' in man's closeness to God. However, once sin entered into the world, 'death' got a negative connotation, which is why we so often view it as a punishment.  

[Kittey-chan]

Does God punish children for the sins of their parents?
-here's a better question: Do I belive a loving, benevolant God would do that?
And my answer is: NO!
There is such a thing as consequences- when a parent has a disease, they might pass it on to their children. Sure. But God is not going to punish children for things that were not thier own fault. God lays the blame where it belongs, no? So us not being in Eden is a consequence of Adam and Eve, but not a punishment.
I mean, how many our our parents have sinned? (answer: all of them). Does God punish you for that? How fair would you feel that to be? And isn't God a just God? So how would you feel about being punished for a *very distant ancestor*?

Original sin is dogma. Christians have no place for blind dogma; all it can do is blind us to what we need to be seeing- God.  

[Berezi]

that_fairy

Does God punish children for the sins of their parents?
-here's a better question: Do I belive a loving, benevolant God would do that?
And my answer is: NO!
There is such a thing as consequences- when a parent has a disease, they might pass it on to their children. Sure. But God is not going to punish children for things that were not thier own fault. God lays the blame where it belongs, no? So us not being in Eden is a consequence of Adam and Eve, but not a punishment.
I mean, how many our our parents have sinned? (answer: all of them). Does God punish you for that? How fair would you feel that to be? And isn't God a just God? So how would you feel about being punished for a *very distant ancestor*?

Original sin is dogma. Christians have no place for blind dogma; all it can do is blind us to what we need to be seeing- God.

Hon, we're all born with a sinful nature. We all sin. Of course if God punishes us it's not because of Adam and Eve, it's because of our own sin. But we all sin.

And also, since when do we determine what God views as just? God is loving and just, but it's His ballpark. He gets to decide the rules, not us. I say that because sometimes what we view as fair isn't what God views as fair.