The Normalizing Of Bastard Children

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

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'.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I know the meaning of the word and know that the OP is using the proper historical meaning but I question the motive behind using it as there are other ways of describing the same yet the OP makes it clear since this is "Gods [sic] language" that we should value it regardless what it's colloquial meanings may be.

Either it is a KJV only-st sentiment (which I'm not interested in)
or an insensitive sentiment just for shock value or to be overly argumentative (also not interested in)

using "bastard" tells a lot about the tone of the OP and it's just something I can't subscribe to. every child is valued by God regardless of what situation they are born into and I don't know the agenda here of the OP that we should ostracize children and their families born out of wedlock? There are biblical ways of dealing with immorality within the church and those should be followed but it would be counter-gospel to superimpose this to those outside the church, especially OT law which just misses the point altogether.

I'm not unaware of the unrighteous plague that our young people are being raised in. Some girls are having babies because some boy wants to see how many kids he can have with different girls, like notches on a gun; not that he supports any of them, welfare takes over in place of his responsibilities. And most girls believe sex is just part of dating - the normal, as in the OP of @Daniel C.

But what if these young people were raised that their out of wedlock kids would be labeled a bastard - calling it for what it is? Would they start taking that into consideration and use some self control, and, in some cases, wait till marriage?

 

[Helmut-WK]

Didn't you both know that the KJV was passed down directly from God himself to Adam and Eve as a going away gift upon their ejection from Eden?

You are wrong, it was the Luther Bible (edition of 1545), not the KJV!

 

[CharismaticLady]

That women are equal to God?

Where did Paul say anything like that? You are bearing false witness.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I voted 'no'.

There are two "no" options, which one you voted for?

 

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

There are two "no" options, which one you voted for?

the second one

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm not unaware of the unrighteous plague that our young people are being raised in. Some girls are having babies because some boy wants to see how many kids he can have with different girls, like notches on a gun; not that he supports any of them, welfare takes over in place of his responsibilities. And most girls believe sex is just part of dating - the normal, as in the OP of @Daniel C.

But what if these young people were raised that their out of wedlock kids would be labeled a bastard - calling it for what it is? Would they start taking that into consideration and use some self control, and, in some cases, wait till marriage?

Because "it" has a personal identity that doesn't need to be blamed for their parents misgivngs. I get the word's proper meaning is being used but what the OP seems to not get is its colloquial meaning is far more dominate so when we use this word we need to ask what is the meaning received because you might as well be calling them useless or waste of sperm because that's all these children are going to hear.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Because "it" has a personal identity that doesn't need to be blamed for their parents misgivngs. I get the word's proper meaning is being used but what the OP seems to not get is its colloquial meaning is far more dominate so when we use this word we need to ask what is the meaning received because you might as well be calling them useless or waste of sperm because that's all these children are going to hear.

It has to be cut-off at the source - the parents. Their thinking has to change, even if it takes shock therapy.

 

[bekkilyn]

You are wrong, it was the Luther Bible (edition of 1545), not the KJV!

Hush! You will destroy the entire faith of KJV-Onlyism!

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

The question is "Are bastard children acceptable?" not "Are having bastard children acceptable?" Which would mean the act of having bastard children. The OP does seem to be condemning the act but also cites scripture that condemn the child so it's hard to draw a distinction based on the OP's version.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Where did Paul say anything like that? You are bearing false witness.

No, I was just to Gal 3:28. See also 1.Cor 7:3-5, where Paul puts equality into practice. Or the mutual obedience stressed in Eph 5:21. Did you know that Eph 5:22 has no "obedient" in the original?

 

[DamianWarS]

It has to be cut-off at the source - the parents. Their thinking has to change, even if it takes shock therapy.

These are unproductive solutions. We all know bringing back the word bastard to condemn premarital relations is not going to happen in secular thought or main stream Christianity and attempts to do so will have a negative impact on the gospel. This isn't 1611 and we need to respond to our mission where their understanding is now not 400 years ago, not 100 years ago not 50 not 10 but now. This isn't about compromising the gospel it's about using the right words to have the most positive impact.

 

[Helmut-WK]

the second one

Does this mean it is OK for you if children born out of wedlock are banned, rejected etc.?

 

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

The question is "Are bastard children acceptable?" not "Are having bastard children acceptable?"

the actual post reveals what the OP was referring to.

 

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

Does this mean it is OK for you if children born out of wedlock are banned, rejected etc.?

no and, again, the OP never made that claim.

 

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

So God clearly wants children to enter into the world in a certain manner. Just wandering if people here think having a Bastard child is acceptable or marriage before the child's birth is essential? The world keeps pushing for more and more of Gods will to be eliminated,please bear in mind this ultimately is an issue of how adults and potential parents conduct themselves,not an attack on children so curious how the forum felt on this issue. Thanks.

did everyone just miss this?

 

[DamianWarS]

the actual post reveals what the OP was referring to.

Yet the OP chose those words and chose to cite biblical laws that also condemn the children even calling it "Gods [sic] language"

 

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

and made no attempts to correct this alleged misunderstanding.

he did...

So God clearly wants children to enter into the world in a certain manner. Just wandering if people here think having a Bastard child is acceptable or marriage before the child's birth is essential? The world keeps pushing for more and more of Gods will to be eliminated,please bear in mind this ultimately is an issue of how adults and potential parents conduct themselves,not an attack on children so curious how the forum felt on this issue. Thanks.

 

[CharismaticLady]

No, I was just to Gal 3:28. See also 1.Cor 7:3-5, where Paul puts equality into practice. Or the mutual obedience stressed in Eph 5:21. Did you know that Eph 5:22 has no "obedient" in the original?

equal to God, or men. You said God!

 

[CharismaticLady]

These are unproductive solutions. We all know bringing back the word bastard to condemn premarital relations is not going to happen in secular thought or main stream Christianity and attempts to do so will have a negative impact on the gospel. This isn't 1611 and we need to respond to our mission where their understanding is now not 400 years ago, not 100 years ago not 50 not 10 but now. This isn't about compromising the gospel it's about using the right words to have the most positive impact.

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."