The Normalizing Of Bastard Children

[hedrick]

not sure why everyone responding assumed the OP was condemning children out of wedlock and not having children out of wedlock. a child has no control over how they got here.

I voted 'no'.

The OP defends the use of an obscene term that is attached to the children, not the parents. And he quotes a passage from Deut that penalizes the children.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

The OP defends the use of an obscene term that is attached to the children, not the parents.

and this has what to do with whether or not having children out of wedlock is acceptable?

 

[hedrick]

and this has what to do with whether or not having children out of wedlock is acceptable?

You said "not sure why everyone responding assumed the OP was condemning children out of wedlock and not having children out of wedlock. a child has no control over how they got here." Everyone is assuming it because the OP said it.

When the title of the thread is "are ... children acceptable" and it quotes Deut 23:2, it's about the children.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Purity culture raises its ugly head yet again in order to demean and devalue people made in the Divine Image.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You said "not sure why everyone responding assumed the OP was condemning children out of wedlock and not having children out of wedlock. a child has no control over how they got here." Everyone is assuming it because the OP said it.

When the title of the thread is "are ... children acceptable" and it quotes Deut 23:2, it's about the children.

and that comment(along with the OPs original question) refers to whether or not it's ok for people to have children out of wedlock and has nothing to do with the use of the "B-word".

post #218

 

[Hmm]

I've recently joined the forum and this is my second post. Too bad it has to be to criticise the decision to make this a featured thread. It's not a good look for new visitors. The OP seems very bitter over something.

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, I just looked up Deut 23:2 in the Word commentary. It says that the word translated b..d in KJV is used only twice in the OT. It probably meant a "child ‘dedicated’ to a foreign god, by reason of its conception during some kind of temple fertility ritual”" The commentary also points to Isa 56:3–5 and Ruth has indicating that the prophets and later OT writers didn't accept excluding children because of their parentage.

 

[charsan]

the OP is deliberately trying to be crass just for clickbait and then hides behind "Gods [sic] language"

A lot of people do that, sad really. Maybe the OP is a troll?

 

[hedrick]

A lot of people do that, sad really. Maybe the OP is a troll?

No, actually I think he was talking about the importance of being married when you have kids, and just was confused about wording and Scripture support.

 

[charsan]

Purity culture raises its ugly head yet again in order to demean and devalue people made in the Divine Image.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly. I believe KJV Onlyism will always do that.

 

[eleos1954]

I will add that the guy shares responsibility too,however.

harlot is a Biblical term. I hold the Bible as my authority and Gods language as clean.

You have an objection to this?

What is "God's" language? Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic? Something else?

We have no idea

 

[Not David]

Excellent point about Jesus blinding with light.
Jesus never causes people to be blind.

8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

Yes, St. Paul. He also called St. Peter Satan and cursed a fig tree.

 

[Not David]

What is "God's" language? Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic? Something else?

Arabic and Russian.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Arabic and Russian.

Why Russian?

I would say Hebrew, but Jesus may have also spoke Arabic

 

[Not David]

Why Russian?

I would say Hebrew, but Jesus may have also spoke Arabic

A lot of Russian saints and theology writings from Russia

 

[DamianWarS]

Do you know that even "out of wedlock" is now out of date? God is not a God just of love, but of wrath, and He starts with the Church. If we keep white washing the gospel to itching ears, where will it end? Most of today's Christians are lukewarm, and it is due to trying to sanitize sins.

Jonathan Edwards started a great revival by scaring the "hell" out of people! He preached "fire and brimstone."

if it won't be said from the pulpit then we shouldn't be using the word in our evangelistic efforts (unless your name is Steven Anderson)

 

[DamianWarS]

Why Russian?

I would say Hebrew, but Jesus may have also spoke Arabic

Arabic wasn't around in the 1st century

 

[JackRT]

Arabic wasn't around in the 1st century

Aramaic was --- Jesus' native language

 

[coffee4u]

I've recently joined the forum and this is my second post. Too bad it has to be to criticise the decision to make this a featured thread. It's not a good look for new visitors. The OP seems very bitter over something.

I may be wrong, but I think featured is an automatic thing that happens given a certain number of replies. This has garnered 12 pages of them.

 

[CharismaticLady]

if it won't be said from the pulpit then we shouldn't be using the word in our evangelistic efforts (unless your name is Steven Anderson)

I don't know who Steven Anderson, so that comment went over my head. LOL Look, I understand where you are coming from, and it is not a word for "polite society." But, I hope you can sense my concern for the apathy that white-washed Christianity has created in our times.