grudges against the churches

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

 

I can understand the churches position about the baby shower.  Had it been my church, when I was still a Pastor, I would have been more than happy to accept that this girl made a mistake, and if she repented of her sin, fully accept her as a member in good standing, but to allow a baby shower would not be right.  There should be a distinction when it comes to a baby conceived by a married couple as opposed to an illegitimate child.  You say the family was shunned.  How so?  Just refusing to go along with them is not the same thing as shunning them. 

 

I think a compromise might have been that individuals in the church give gifts to her outside of a formal baby shower, as it is in their heart to do.  If the parents want to give her a baby shower, they should do so outside the church.  I agree with the church with regard to the shower, but I don't have enough information to know how I feel about the accusation they shunned the parents.

 

They were shunned a large segment of the congregation.  The family would sit alone at pot lucks, I watched a different family get up an move to a different pew when this family sat down for Sunday service.  They were no longer invited to lunch after church with the group that they used to eat with.

 

As for the distinction when it comes to a baby conceived by a married couple as opposed to an illegitimate child, does that hold true after the baby is born?  Should the church treat the child differently?

 

I see judgment on those you watched without you telling us what you did to make them feel welcomed. Did you get up and sit next to them or ask them to join you? Did you ask them to join you and sit with you at these potlucks? What did you do to love them as you love yourself?

 

 

I did all I could to make them fell like they still belonged, I did go out of my way to sit with them at pot lucks and at services.  I spoke out in their defense and was taken aside and asked if I was the father of the baby as that was the only reason these people could fathom that I would support them.  The topic came to a head a business meeting,  I argued that the baby did nothing wrong and should not be punished for a mistake by the mother, a mistake the mother repeated for.  I was told that to treat the baby like the baby of a married couple would be to show approval of the actions of the mother.  I honestly believe that if we had been living 100 years earlier that both mother and baby would have been marked with a bit red A and driven out with sticks and pitch forks.

 

I thought the whole idea of one who was a bastard went back further without so much, like here...

Duet 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

 

 

The term 'bastard' or in Hebrew mamzer, is very very very different then the modern day definition. A mamzer is a child of a couple who could not be married according to the Mosaic law. If two people who are single, slept together and were not married, but could legally get married, the resultant child is not considered a mamzer/bastard. But if a couple got married, who according to the law, were not to marry, and had a baby while married, that baby is a mamzer.

   

It is highly likely that the baby mentioned, who was born out of wedlock, does not fit the definition of a mamzer so is not a biblically defined mamzer.  

 

The girl in this case, commited a sin, but that sin does not biblically, make the baby a mamzer. The baby is innocent.

 

Biblically, it becomes more complicated. The sin committed by the girl was fornication. The act itself is the sin. The resultant pregnancy is not the sin. It is the result of the sin, but not the sin. The baby is innocent, and being pregnant out of wedlock is not a sin.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

I can understand the churches position about the baby shower.  Had it been my church, when I was still a Pastor, I would have been more than happy to accept that this girl made a mistake, and if she repented of her sin, fully accept her as a member in good standing, but to allow a baby shower would not be right.  There should be a distinction when it comes to a baby conceived by a married couple as opposed to an illegitimate child.  You say the family was shunned.  How so?  Just refusing to go along with them is not the same thing as shunning them. 

 

I think a compromise might have been that individuals in the church give gifts to her outside of a formal baby shower, as it is in their heart to do.  If the parents want to give her a baby shower, they should do so outside the church.  I agree with the church with regard to the shower, but I don't have enough information to know how I feel about the accusation they shunned the parents.

 

They were shunned a large segment of the congregation.  The family would sit alone at pot lucks, I watched a different family get up an move to a different pew when this family sat down for Sunday service.  They were no longer invited to lunch after church with the group that they used to eat with.

 

As for the distinction when it comes to a baby conceived by a married couple as opposed to an illegitimate child, does that hold true after the baby is born?  Should the church treat the child differently?

I see judgment on those you watched without you telling us what you did to make them feel welcomed. Did you get up and sit next to them or ask them to join you? Did you ask them to join you and sit with you at these potlucks? What did you do to love them as you love yourself?

 

I did all I could to make them fell like they still belonged, I did go out of my way to sit with them at pot lucks and at services.  I spoke out in their defense and was taken aside and asked if I was the father of the baby as that was the only reason these people could fathom that I would support them.  The topic came to a head a business meeting,  I argued that the baby did nothing wrong and should not be punished for a mistake by the mother, a mistake the mother repeated for.  I was told that to treat the baby like the baby of a married couple would be to show approval of the actions of the mother.  I honestly believe that if we had been living 100 years earlier that both mother and baby would have been marked with a bit red A and driven out with sticks and pitch forks.

I thought the whole idea of one who was a bastard went back further without so much, like here...

Duet 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

 

The term 'bastard' or in Hebrew mamzer, is very very very different then the modern day definition. A mamzer is a child of a couple who could not be married according to the Mosaic law. If two people who are single, slept together and were not married, but could legally get married, the resultant child is not considered a mamzer/bastard. But if a couple got married, who according to the law, were not to marry, and had a baby while married, that baby is a mamzer.

   

It is highly likely that the baby mentioned, who was born out of wedlock, does not fit the definition of a mamzer so is not a biblically defined mamzer.  

 

The girl in this case, commited a sin, but that sin does not biblically, make the baby a mamzer. The baby is innocent.

 

Biblically, it becomes more complicated. The sin committed by the girl was fornication. The act itself is the sin. The resultant pregnancy is not the sin. It is the result of the sin, but not the sin. The baby is innocent, and being pregnant out of wedlock is not a sin.

Where does it even say (or imply) that a child (whether a bastard in either sense of it or not) is the one guilty of it's parents sin? Or even that the pregnancy (or conception of a child) is a kind of manifestation of the babys own sin? I never saw that implied anyway.

Now, Pharez was born to Judah and Tamar, what would Pharez be considered? Because Tamar wasn't married to Judah, neither is considered a heathen or alien in the context of these two correct?

Because it appears the word "bastard" is used twice and under the definition implies one which could be born out of incest, or adultery, or a forbidden or mixed union or marriage. In fact Pharez (breach) is brought up in the context of the house of Ruth as well (Ruth 4:12)

Ruth herself was Moabite correct? Which is interesting because Duet 23:3 says, An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever. So shows the same thing. And so likewise of Rehoboam (who is counted in the genealogy in the gospels), it says of his mother 1Kings 14:21... Rehoboam ... his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

In both cases its the women are shown to be either the Ammonite or the Moabite in the sense of foreign women (conceiving). But both of these also (the Ammonite and Moabite) are the same separately named (even along with the bastard) as not being allowed to enter the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation.

All three are shown, and yet that which is to apply to what is alien (or concerning a bastard) wouldn't then apply to Tamar and Judah, but would seem far better applied to the Ammoritess and Moabitess. But they are already applied to the same condition that is named separately for whats called a bastard in scripture.

Seems narrowly applied there given what it shows in these examples.

[Qnts2]

 

 

The term 'bastard' or in Hebrew mamzer, is very very very different then the modern day definition. A mamzer is a child of a couple who could not be married according to the Mosaic law. If two people who are single, slept together and were not married, but could legally get married, the resultant child is not considered a mamzer/bastard. But if a couple got married, who according to the law, were not to marry, and had a baby while married, that baby is a mamzer.

   

It is highly likely that the baby mentioned, who was born out of wedlock, does not fit the definition of a mamzer so is not a biblically defined mamzer.  

 

The girl in this case, commited a sin, but that sin does not biblically, make the baby a mamzer. The baby is innocent.

 

Biblically, it becomes more complicated. The sin committed by the girl was fornication. The act itself is the sin. The resultant pregnancy is not the sin. It is the result of the sin, but not the sin. The baby is innocent, and being pregnant out of wedlock is not a sin.

 

Where does it even say (or imply) that a child (whether a bastard in either sense of it or not) is the one guilty of it's parents sin? Or even that the pregnancy (or conception of a child) is a kind of manifestation of the babys own sin? I never saw that implied anyway.

Now, Pharez was born to Judah and Tamar, what would Pharez be considered? Because Tamar wasn't married to Judah, neither is considered a heathen or alien in the context of these two correct?

Because it appears the word "bastard" is used twice and under the definition implies one which could be born out of incest, or adultery, or a forbidden or mixed union or marriage. In fact Pharez (breach) is brought up in the context of the house of Ruth as well (Ruth 4:12)

Ruth herself was Moabite correct? Which is interesting because Duet 23:3 says, An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever. So shows the same thing. And so likewise of Rehoboam (who is counted in the genealogy in the gospels), it says of his mother 1Kings 14:21... Rehoboam ... his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

In both cases its the women are shown to be either the Ammonite or the Moabite in the sense of foreign women (conceiving). But both of these also (the Ammonite and Moabite) are the same separately named (even along with the bastard) as not being allowed to enter the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation.

All three are shown, and yet that which is to apply to what is alien (or concerning a bastard) wouldn't then apply to Tamar and Judah, but would seem far better applied to the Ammoritess and Moabitess. But they are already applied to the same condition that is named separately for whats called a bastard in scripture.

Seems narrowly applied there given what it shows in these examples.

 

 

Pharez was not a mamzer based on OT law.

 

Rehoboam was not a mamzer based on OT law.

 

No where in scripture does it say that the child who is a mamzer is guilty of the parents sin. But the child is still a mamzer.  Incest as defined in the OT, is usually different then most peoples concept of what incest is. And there are other laws such as the levirate law, which can add to the complexity of defining an illegitimate union of people.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

The term 'bastard' or in Hebrew mamzer, is very very very different then the modern day definition. A mamzer is a child of a couple who could not be married according to the Mosaic law. If two people who are single, slept together and were not married, but could legally get married, the resultant child is not considered a mamzer/bastard. But if a couple got married, who according to the law, were not to marry, and had a baby while married, that baby is a mamzer.

   

It is highly likely that the baby mentioned, who was born out of wedlock, does not fit the definition of a mamzer so is not a biblically defined mamzer.  

 

The girl in this case, commited a sin, but that sin does not biblically, make the baby a mamzer. The baby is innocent.

 

Biblically, it becomes more complicated. The sin committed by the girl was fornication. The act itself is the sin. The resultant pregnancy is not the sin. It is the result of the sin, but not the sin. The baby is innocent, and being pregnant out of wedlock is not a sin.

Where does it even say (or imply) that a child (whether a bastard in either sense of it or not) is the one guilty of it's parents sin? Or even that the pregnancy (or conception of a child) is a kind of manifestation of the babys own sin? I never saw that implied anyway.

Now, Pharez was born to Judah and Tamar, what would Pharez be considered? Because Tamar wasn't married to Judah, neither is considered a heathen or alien in the context of these two correct?

Because it appears the word "bastard" is used twice and under the definition implies one which could be born out of incest, or adultery, or a forbidden or mixed union or marriage. In fact Pharez (breach) is brought up in the context of the house of Ruth as well (Ruth 4:12)

Ruth herself was Moabite correct? Which is interesting because Duet 23:3 says, An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever. So shows the same thing. And so likewise of Rehoboam (who is counted in the genealogy in the gospels), it says of his mother 1Kings 14:21... Rehoboam ... his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

In both cases its the women are shown to be either the Ammonite or the Moabite in the sense of foreign women (conceiving). But both of these also (the Ammonite and Moabite) are the same separately named (even along with the bastard) as not being allowed to enter the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation.

All three are shown, and yet that which is to apply to what is alien (or concerning a bastard) wouldn't then apply to Tamar and Judah, but would seem far better applied to the Ammoritess and Moabitess. But they are already applied to the same condition that is named separately for whats called a bastard in scripture.

Seems narrowly applied there given what it shows in these examples.

 

Pharez was not a mamzer based on OT law.

 

Rehoboam was not a mamzer based on OT law.

 

No where in scripture does it say that the child who is a mamzer is guilty of the parents sin. But the child is still a mamzer.  Incest as defined in the OT, is usually different then most peoples concept of what incest is. And there are other laws such as the levirate law, which can add to the complexity of defining an illegitimate union of people.

That's all well and good, but explains nothing really, just comes off as a "nuh huh"

No where have I even spoken that straw man concerning a child being guilty of their parents sin, and no where have I even attempted to define incest (a word I cant find in there) but neither would incest (whether defined as we might) apply to anything in the present tense either for that matter.

We know there was that which were called bastards who were not to enter the congregation of the Lord even though they weren't guilty of a thing. My point being this surpasses (backwards even) that hundred year mark is what I was saying.

[GoldenEagle]

Perhaps we should get back to the subject at hand?

[Willa]

Pursue peace with all men, and holiness without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any ROOT OF BITTERNESS springing up cause trouble, and BY THIS MANY BECOME DEFILED; Hebrews 12:14-15 NKJV

When we cannot forgive in our own strength, and we know we are lost because God said : for if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father in Heaven forgive you your trespasses. Then we must ask God to fill us with His loving forgiveness which hung on that cross saying "father, forgive them, they know not what they do." Ask God to forgive you for your own sinfulness and fill you with His Spirit and give you the power to obey Him because you can't do it in your own strength.

I say this in all humility because I found it the only way out of my own bitterness and hatred, which doesn't destroy the people we can't forgive. It destroys us.

Somewhere the Bible also warns us against taking up the offences of others; I can't find it right now. But it is a good practice. When our unforgiveness becomes a root of bitterness it hurts the people we love the most. It taints every aspect of our lives and chokes out our love. Our cause may be very righteous; it is still wrong to çold blame and bitterness. Sometimes the righteous bitterness we have is worse in God's eyes than the original evil we condemn, though this seems hard to imagine. We fail to realize how evil our own sinful nature is and to what lengths God went to redeem us. We don't deserve His mercy either. We don't deserve His love. But He does it for that very reason. God came not for the righteous but for sinners.

 

I just want to comment, more as an informational thing.

 

There is a teaching which has been going around, which uses the term 'root of bitterness' as a bludgeoning tool against Christians. If someone disagrees with a theology, they are said to have a 'root of bitterness' to embarras them into silence, or alienate them. If a person is upset about an injustice, they are said to have a 'root of bitterness'. If a person identifies leadership especially, or something wrong, they are said to have a root of bitterness.

 

Just be aware that the terminology 'root of bitterness' is used by some in a very manipulative and hurtful way, so often, that it has become their tool and catch phrase used to silence and marginalize others.

 

On the otherhand, can a person who was wronged, become angry? Of course. It is a natural reaction. But if they hold onto that anger, not turning the situation over to God, then that anger starts to effect them in such a way, they become in bondage to that anger. That is true. However, not forgiving, and not releasing that anger, is not the unforgivable sin. It makes the person involved less happy and with less joy, so less effective, but again, in light of Jesus death for all sins, unforgiveness is not an unforgivable sin. Lack of forgiveness, is tied to the Day of Atonement in the Mosaic covenant, but that is quite different then what we have received in the New Covenant.

Thank you quints, I was not aware of this use of the phrase now days. My root of bitterness was a self diagnosis which referred to what occurred in 1970 when I realized I could not forgive people who threatened and ridiculed me simply for being a Christian. But it went much deeper. For the prior 15 years I had lived in this unforgiving bitterness and I don't even know when it began. But all during the years since I was first saved, the people who I found to be the most antagonizing were those who self righteously condemned others while they themselves were cold and unforgiving. Much later I realized that God was using them to show me my own attitudes and behavior. THE THINGS THAT IRRITATE ME MOST IN OTHERS ARE USUALLY THE SINS I AM BLIND TO IN MYSELF. Seeing my kids mirror my various sinful attitudes was one of the hard ones as well. But today I am thankful for God having placed these people in my life because I am now set free to have compassion on them. I know how miserable they are.

I was saved in my early teens, around the 7th-8th grade. Having repented of outward sins I didn't even understand that God wanted to change my whole nature and that He Himself wanted to live in me and through me almost as He had in Jesus. I didn't understand how He was working to bring this about or why He kept bringing these abrasive people into my life. He was doing it to show me myself. So I fell on my face before Him once again in repentance and asked Him to make me the person He wanted to be and to fill me with His Spirit. This "second blessing" totally changed my Christian walk because I learned how to hear God's voice and walk in the Spirit. Having begun int the Spirit I had been trying to live the Christian life by self effort.

God's transformation has been a slow process. Like John the Baptist said, I must decrease that He might increase.

So I wasn't trying to bludgeon anybody and I apologize if anyone took it that way. And it was directed toward the topic rather than toward individuals who posted here. The less that the sins of others bother me, the more they are being replaced by God's grace and love for them in my own life. That is probably what the verse meant by "lest anyone fall short of the grace of God". Not so much saving grace, but fall short of the grace He extends to all of us to enable us to forbear one another in love. Grace is unmerited favor. We need to be filled with Gods loving grace and patience with each other as He changes all of us from glory to glory.

We are to hate evil. We are not to hate the people who are ensnared it or even condemn them. We are to pity them. For while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans. Matt.5:44 NKJV: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven;" And when we can't do it, God is able to make us both to will and to do for His good pleasure. So ask Him for both the will and His power to do His will and to extend grace to others who are hard to love.

Blessings,

Willa

[Qnts2]

 

 

Pursue peace with all men, and holiness without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any ROOT OF BITTERNESS springing up cause trouble, and BY THIS MANY BECOME DEFILED; Hebrews 12:14-15 NKJV

When we cannot forgive in our own strength, and we know we are lost because God said : for if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father in Heaven forgive you your trespasses. Then we must ask God to fill us with His loving forgiveness which hung on that cross saying "father, forgive them, they know not what they do." Ask God to forgive you for your own sinfulness and fill you with His Spirit and give you the power to obey Him because you can't do it in your own strength.

I say this in all humility because I found it the only way out of my own bitterness and hatred, which doesn't destroy the people we can't forgive. It destroys us.

Somewhere the Bible also warns us against taking up the offences of others; I can't find it right now. But it is a good practice. When our unforgiveness becomes a root of bitterness it hurts the people we love the most. It taints every aspect of our lives and chokes out our love. Our cause may be very righteous; it is still wrong to çold blame and bitterness. Sometimes the righteous bitterness we have is worse in God's eyes than the original evil we condemn, though this seems hard to imagine. We fail to realize how evil our own sinful nature is and to what lengths God went to redeem us. We don't deserve His mercy either. We don't deserve His love. But He does it for that very reason. God came not for the righteous but for sinners.

 

I just want to comment, more as an informational thing.

 

There is a teaching which has been going around, which uses the term 'root of bitterness' as a bludgeoning tool against Christians. If someone disagrees with a theology, they are said to have a 'root of bitterness' to embarras them into silence, or alienate them. If a person is upset about an injustice, they are said to have a 'root of bitterness'. If a person identifies leadership especially, or something wrong, they are said to have a root of bitterness.

 

Just be aware that the terminology 'root of bitterness' is used by some in a very manipulative and hurtful way, so often, that it has become their tool and catch phrase used to silence and marginalize others.

 

On the otherhand, can a person who was wronged, become angry? Of course. It is a natural reaction. But if they hold onto that anger, not turning the situation over to God, then that anger starts to effect them in such a way, they become in bondage to that anger. That is true. However, not forgiving, and not releasing that anger, is not the unforgivable sin. It makes the person involved less happy and with less joy, so less effective, but again, in light of Jesus death for all sins, unforgiveness is not an unforgivable sin. Lack of forgiveness, is tied to the Day of Atonement in the Mosaic covenant, but that is quite different then what we have received in the New Covenant.

Thank you quints, I was not aware of this use of the phrase now days. My root of bitterness was a self diagnosis which referred to what occurred in 1970 when I realized I could not forgive people who threatened and ridiculed me simply for being a Christian. But it went much deeper. For the prior 15 years I had lived in this unforgiving bitterness and I don't even know when it began. But all during the years since I was first saved, the people who I found to be the most antagonizing were those who self righteously condemned others while they themselves were cold and unforgiving. Much later I realized that God was using them to show me my own attitudes and behavior. THE THINGS THAT IRRITATE ME MOST IN OTHERS ARE USUALLY THE SINS I AM BLIND TO IN MYSELF. Seeing my kids mirror my various sinful attitudes was one of the hard ones as well. But today I am thankful for God having placed these people in my life because I am now set free to have compassion on them. I know how miserable they are.

I was saved in my early teens, around the 7th-8th grade. Having repented of outward sins I didn't even understand that God wanted to change my whole nature and that He Himself wanted to live in me and through me almost as He had in Jesus. I didn't understand how He was working to bring this about or why He kept bringing these abrasive people into my life. He was doing it to show me myself. So I fell on my face before Him once again in repentance and asked Him to make me the person He wanted to be and to fill me with His Spirit. This "second blessing" totally changed my Christian walk because I learned how to hear God's voice and walk in the Spirit. Having begun int the Spirit I had been trying to live the Christian life by self effort.

God's transformation has been a slow process. Like John the Baptist said, I must decrease that He might increase.

So I wasn't trying to bludgeon anybody and I apologize if anyone took it that way. And it was directed toward the topic rather than toward individuals who posted here. The less that the sins of others bother me, the more they are being replaced by God's grace and love for them in my own life. That is probably what the verse meant by "lest anyone fall short of the grace of God". Not so much saving grace, but fall short of the grace He extends to all of us to enable us to forbear one another in love. Grace is unmerited favor. We need to be filled with Gods loving grace and patience with each other as He changes all of us from glory to glory.

We are to hate evil. We are not to hate the people who are ensnared it or even condemn them. We are to pity them. For while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans. Matt.5:44 NKJV: love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven;" And when we can't do it, God is able to make us both to will and to do for His good pleasure. So ask Him for both the will and His power to do His will and to extend grace to others who are hard to love.

Blessings,

Willa

 

Thanks. You are definitely not using the 'root of bitterness' the same way. I am glad you gave your testimony about this. Very impressive, the truth the God taught how and how it changed your life. He is great.