PDA

View Full Version : Was God loving for stigmatizing people?



Poly
May 11th, 2004, 10:22 AM
Was God loving when he stigmatized certain people?

For example, He called women who sold their bodies, harlots. Of course today it isn't nice or politically correct to label people as they once were. A child born out of wedlock was really looked down upon and called a very derogatory name. Today there is little shame that goes along with this and the mother is praised for being a "single mom".
When there is more shame that is brought upon a sinful situation, it speaks volumes for ones who are considering that same situation. When people take things like adultery, homosexuality, and children born without a father lightly and reduce the shame that God associates with it, there is a greater chance of it happening and therefore a greater chance of one harming themselves and others. God was not a big meanie when he stigmatized these people. He wanted great shock value to come along with their shameful acts to ensure that nobody would be tempted to fall into such vile acts so God was loving in doing this.

beanieboy
May 11th, 2004, 10:29 AM
You think it is loving to call a child a bastard?
You think it makes sense to complain of abortion, then condemn mother and child when it is born out of wedlock?

Poly
May 11th, 2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

You think it is loving to call a child a bastard?
This question is clearly answered in my first post.

You think it makes sense to complain of abortion, then condemn mother and child when it is born out of wedlock?
Where do you get that if one complains about abortion, they shouldn't also complain about a child being born out of wedlock? :confused:

Lucky
May 11th, 2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Poly

A child born out of wedlock was really looked down upon and called a very derogatory name.
Please list some references. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one mother in the Bible who got pregnant before she was married. And neither her nor the child were stigmatized, well not in the long run.

A child has no say in who his/her parents will be, so I've never really understood why one born out of wedlock should be punished for the mother's and "biological father's" sin. Can anyone explain that one to me? :confused:

Poly
May 11th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Lucky

Please list some references. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one mother in the Bible who got pregnant before she was married. And neither her nor the child were stigmatized, well not in the long run.

Deuteronomy 23:2
Hebrews 12:8

In both of these passages a derogatory name is given referring to one who is without a father.


A child has no say in who his/her parents will be, so I've never really understood why one born out of wedlock should be punished for the mother's and "biological father's" sin. Can anyone explain that one to me? :confused:
But who is it that's doing the punishing? This is one of many abusive things that parents do to children. Maybe somebody could explain it to me as well.

beanieboy
May 11th, 2004, 12:14 PM
Jesus was born to a woman that wasn't married.
Should we use that name to refer to Jesus, now?
The "b"?

Lucky
May 11th, 2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Deuteronomy 23:2
Hebrews 12:8
Thanks. I'd like to do some more studying on this. :Poly:

But who is it that's doing the punishing? This is one of many abusive things that parents do to children. Maybe somebody could explain it to me as well.
Ah, I see what you mean. I actually know someone who was born out of wedlock and was stigmatized by her own mom. It's no wonder that the child quickly had her own child, out of wedlock, at a rediculously young age. And it already seems like she is treating the child worse than her mom treated her. :shake:

Poly
May 11th, 2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Jesus was born to a woman that wasn't married.
Should we use that name to refer to Jesus, now?
The "b"?
Jesus had a Father. The same One that says you are condemned.

Lighthouse
May 11th, 2004, 12:43 PM
I don't think the verse in Hebrews was actually referring to children born out of wedlock. It was saying that those who call themselves Christians but do not live according to the law, are liars.

Poly
May 11th, 2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I don't think the verse in Hebrews was actually referring to children born out of wedlock. It was saying that those who call themselves Christians but do not live according to the law, are liars.
Yes, I realize that God is painting a picture here but in His picture He is showing that they will be as one without a father.

"But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

Poly
May 7th, 2008, 08:26 PM
bump

MaryContrary
May 7th, 2008, 09:29 PM
Thanks for the bump! First time seeing this so I didn't get to vote until now.

YES!!!

Warning, run-on sentence ahead:
The indefatigable efforts of a handful of very loving friends to shame me for my choices in life played a huge part in giving me the desire to escape that life enough that I was able at last to let God rescue me from it.
Whew. Probably could have broken that down into more than one sentence.

And I do mean "indefatigable". As in constant, never ending and without pause for more than a fresh cup of coffee. I'm still kinda glad they hadn't yet learned about 1 Corinthians 5:11 on one hand while wondering how things would have been different if they had. :squint:
Of course they did twink to that verse eventually and I wasn't even allowed to come around anymore. The one instance where an exception was made I flipped out at being preached at and it cost me my best friend for a while. Never would have seen any of them again if I had been saved soon after that.

I wish there had been more than just a handful of people speaking in opposition to the whole world's approval. I have no doubt I would have probably gotten out sooner.

MaryContrary
May 7th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Thanks for the bump! First time seeing this so I didn't get to vote until now.

YES!!!

Warning, run-on sentence ahead:
The indefatigable efforts of a handful of very loving friends to shame me for my choices in life played a huge part in giving me the desire to escape that life enough that I was able at last to let God rescue me from it.
Whew. Probably could have broken that down into more than one sentence.

And I do mean "indefatigable". As in constant, never ending and without pause for more than a fresh cup of coffee. I'm still kinda glad they hadn't yet learned about 1 Corinthians 5:11 on one hand while wondering how things would have been different if they had. :squint:
Of course they did twink to that verse eventually and I wasn't even allowed to come around anymore. The one instance where an exception was made I flipped out at being preached at and it cost me my best friend for a while. Never would have seen any of them again if I hadn't been saved soon after that.

I wish there had been more than just a handful of people speaking in opposition to the whole world's approval. I have no doubt I would have probably gotten out sooner.

MaryContrary
May 7th, 2008, 09:35 PM
Erm...I tried to edit my post to include the specification that I not only was saved but renounced homosexuality. A shame you have to actually make that point these days.
But I quoted and posted instead. I can seem to edit that post (no edit button) so sorry for the double-bill. :o

Frank Ernest
May 8th, 2008, 05:55 AM
Deuteronomy 23:2
Hebrews 12:8

In both of these passages a derogatory name is given referring to one who is without a father.
There is more to it. In Deuteronomy, the word "bastard", translitered Hebrew "mamzer", refers specifically to a child born of an Israelite father and a heathen mother. The sin here is idolatry. In Hebrews, the word "bastard" refers to one of uncertain parentage. The subject is those who refuse the correction of (i.e., reject) God as ultimate parent.


But who is it that's doing the punishing? This is one of many abusive things that parents do to children. Maybe somebody could explain it to me as well.
Part of the problem lies in regarding state-sanctioned marriage as equivalent to or superior to what constitutes a marriage according to God's law. Perhaps a lingering idea from our Puritan forebearers.

DoogieTalons
May 8th, 2008, 06:12 AM
Deuteronomy 23:2

What is meant by "assembly of the LORD"

Rob

Granite
May 8th, 2008, 06:27 AM
People stigmatize others. At least own up and take credit for your hostility towards or contempt towards certain individuals or groups.

Poly
May 8th, 2008, 06:45 AM
People stigmatize others.

:duh:

But the subject is over God stigmatizing people.


At least own up and take credit for your hostility towards or contempt towards certain individuals or groups.

Who isn't owning up? You do remember this is TOL, right? I don't think you'll find a shortage of people around here who won't own up to their hostility towards others.

Pekkle
May 8th, 2008, 07:14 AM
No I don't think he was loving for stigmatizing people.

Especially with derogatory language.

It could of been written in a more loving way then using insults.

Lighthouse
May 8th, 2008, 08:18 AM
Yes, I realize that God is painting a picture here but in His picture He is showing that they will be as one without a father.

"But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."
Four years? Yikes! Well, since, for some reason, I did not answer this then, I will now: While I agree that it is right and good and loving to stigmatize those who are spiritual bastards, I do not think it is any of those things to do so to a child who is not at fault in that his parents were not married.

Rusha
May 8th, 2008, 08:24 AM
People stigmatize others. At least own up and take credit for your hostility towards or contempt towards certain individuals or groups.

Exactly

yeshuaslavejeff
September 4th, 2010, 08:45 AM
No I don't think he was loving for stigmatizing people.

Especially with derogatory language.

It could of been written in a more loving way then using insults.


....umm, just like aei_u a_c _bc l_n _bc did, eh? ... sad but true...
.
.
who knows more? (
choices:
1) The One and Only Creator.
2) mankind.
3) hasatan.
4) tol members
5) democrats
6) republicans
7) faggost


.
.
the whole society is doomed. judgment is absolutely assured.
only
the
ones immersed in Yahshua survive.
just
like
the days of NOAH - ONLY the ones IN THE ARK did not drown.
the
others (faggost, politicians, priests, prostitutes, roman catholics)
all
had
an opportunity for 100 years to turn away from their sin,
but
they
didn't.
they chose to laugh at NOAH instead.
and
they all drowned.
.
.
.
next time
judgment
is
not
by drowning,
it's
far
far
far
far
far
far
far
far
(ad inf)
far worse. "UNLESS you repent, you will all likewise PERISH" cannot be changed.
.
.
so,
go ahead.
.
.
be nice to the doomed. don't let them know they are doomed.
you will be with them.
.
.
Only those who PLEASE G_D, those HE is HAPPY WITH, survive.
it
is
wrttn

Cracked
September 4th, 2010, 11:20 AM
Was God loving when he stigmatized certain people?

For example, He called women who sold their bodies, harlots. Of course today it isn't nice or politically correct to label people as they once were. A child born out of wedlock was really looked down upon and called a very derogatory name. Today there is little shame that goes along with this and the mother is praised for being a "single mom".
When there is more shame that is brought upon a sinful situation, it speaks volumes for ones who are considering that same situation. When people take things like adultery, homosexuality, and children born without a father lightly and reduce the shame that God associates with it, there is a greater chance of it happening and therefore a greater chance of one harming themselves and others. God was not a big meanie when he stigmatized these people. He wanted great shock value to come along with their shameful acts to ensure that nobody would be tempted to fall into such vile acts so God was loving in doing this.

God is Father to the fatherless.

Rusha
September 4th, 2010, 12:57 PM
Was God loving when he stigmatized certain people?

For example, He called women who sold their bodies, harlots. Of course today it isn't nice or politically correct to label people as they once were. A child born out of wedlock was really looked down upon and called a very derogatory name. Today there is little shame that goes along with this and the mother is praised for being a "single mom".
When there is more shame that is brought upon a sinful situation, it speaks volumes for ones who are considering that same situation. When people take things like adultery, homosexuality, and children born without a father lightly and reduce the shame that God associates with it, there is a greater chance of it happening and therefore a greater chance of one harming themselves and others. God was not a big meanie when he stigmatized these people. He wanted great shock value to come along with their shameful acts to ensure that nobody would be tempted to fall into such vile acts so God was loving in doing this.

There is nothing loving about stigmatizing a woman or teen who is in the midst of a unplanned and out of wedlock pregnancy.


You think it is loving to call a child a bastard?
You think it makes sense to complain of abortion, then condemn mother and child when it is born out of wedlock?

I know you didn't ask me, HOWEVER ... as someone who is an anti-abortion advocate, I feel it is counterproductive to refer to children born out of wedlock as bastards and stigmatize the woman who give birth to them.

The biggest goal for the anti-abortion side shouldn't be to play the morality police but rather to emotionally support women in crisis pregnancies by kindness and encouragement. There is absolutely nothing encouraging about people proclaiming to a pregnant teen/woman "What a stupid whore you are to have gotten pregnant with a bastard child. Now ... even though we think you and your child are scum of the earth, you STILL need to give birth!"


This question is clearly answered in my first post.

Where do you get that if one complains about abortion, they shouldn't also complain about a child being born out of wedlock? :confused:

What good can possibly come from emotionally harming a teen or woman during their pregnancy? Does stigmatizing them add to their stress level and make an already difficult situation harder?

While I will agree that teens should be taught it is best to wait to have children until adulthood when they are more financially secure and in a stable relationship, not all teens will heed such advice.

IMO, a teen/woman who is overloaded by hormones and scared is more likely to decide to abort IF she feels those closest to her will be angry and make her feel like dirt underneath their feet.

Lighthouse
September 4th, 2010, 10:45 PM
There is nothing loving about stigmatizing a woman or teen who is in the midst of a unplanned and out of wedlock pregnancy.
Can you support that?


I know you didn't ask me, HOWEVER ... as someone who is an anti-abortion advocate, I feel it is counterproductive to refer to children born out of wedlock as bastards and stigmatize the woman who give birth to them.
It is certainly unprofitable to label the child based on something at which they are not at fault.


What good can possibly come from emotionally harming a teen or woman during their pregnancy? Does stigmatizing them add to their stress level and make an already difficult situation harder?

While I will agree that teens should be taught it is best to wait to have children until adulthood when they are more financially secure and in a stable relationship, not all teens will heed such advice.

IMO, a teen/woman who is overloaded by hormones and scared is more likely to decide to abort IF she feels those closest to her will be angry and make her feel like dirt underneath their feet.
Stigmatization is not about making someone feel like dirt. That should be intentionally avoided.

Nick M
September 5th, 2010, 08:43 AM
God calling the child a bastard is an insult to the parents for their immoral behavior of sexual relations while not married.

Rusha
September 5th, 2010, 09:30 AM
Stigmatization is not about making someone feel like dirt. That should be intentionally avoided.

But it isn't avoided. And seriously, I see absolutely nothing productive of intentionally trying to make an expectant mother feel badly about herself and her unborn child.

All pregnancies, even those that are planned, are stressful. For a mother who is married and awaiting her newborn, we women worry about any and every little thing.

Now imagine how a pregnant woman who is dealing with other issues in her life as well as being physically vulnerable due to her pregnancy feels when others react in a nasty manner just because they are disapproving of some anonymous circumstance in the woman's life.

The ONLY reason anyone would ever stigmatize a pregnant woman and her unborn child is to let them know they are despised and hated. There is nothing pro-life about stigmatization.

Lighthouse
September 6th, 2010, 09:28 PM
But it isn't avoided. And seriously, I see absolutely nothing productive of intentionally trying to make an expectant mother feel badly about herself and her unborn child.
She should be made to feel bad for being a slut. The pregnancy isn't what she did wrong here.


All pregnancies, even those that are planned, are stressful. For a mother who is married and awaiting her newborn, we women worry about any and every little thing.

Now imagine how a pregnant woman who is dealing with other issues in her life as well as being physically vulnerable due to her pregnancy feels when others react in a nasty manner just because they are disapproving of some anonymous circumstance in the woman's life.

The ONLY reason anyone would ever stigmatize a pregnant woman and her unborn child is to let them know they are despised and hated. There is nothing pro-life about stigmatization.
I'm not interested in stigmatizing a woman for getting pregnant. Nor would I hold her sin against the child, just as I would not hold it against a child if the biological father was a rapist. This is about her having sex out of wedlock. This is not about her getting pregnant.

Lighthouse
September 6th, 2010, 09:34 PM
She should be made to feel bad for being a slut. The pregnancy isn't what she did wrong here.


I'm not interested in stigmatizing a woman for getting pregnant. Nor would I hold her sin against the child, just as I would not hold it against a child if the biological father was a rapist. This is about her having sex out of wedlock. This is not about her getting pregnant.
P.S.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Getting an abortion because you got pregnant [which is not the wrong] through sex outside the confines of marriage [which is the wrong] is just more wrong on top of the wrong of the sex.