Question:
> my response to you was not meant as an attack (hope you didn’t take it > that way)
Don’t worry…I didn’t! > … for the benefit of those > individuals who *do* attempt to use biblical justification for > disiplining their children by hitting, there is no logic nor rationale > for such attempts.
Again, I agree. The main message of scriptures is that discipline is important. However, just as Jesus dismissed Moses’ divorce laws because, in those days, people were ‘hard’, so the use of the rod *can* be dismissed in the same way. Equally, there is nothing in scripture (that I am aware of) that opposes physical discipline. This falls into the area of ‘disputable doctrine’. What scripture says about this is that we should accept people who believe differently without passing judgement on the matter. Each of us is to make his/her own mind up according to our own consciences, for we are accountable for our own actions to God (Rom:14). — Steve Myers http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk
Response:
>> … I don’t feel guilty about anything that I’ve done >which has the best interests of my children in mind. > Then you must have a hard heart, Steve.
Well, I am hurt by this comment – is that how someone with a ‘hard heart’ should feel? I would appreciate it if you would not judge my character simply because we disagree over an issue. > Many times I have done what I > thought at the time was best for my daughter, only to look back on it with > guilt in my heart and a lump in my throat knowing that it was the wrong > thing. Actually, you have felt this too, in the part of your post that you > snipped in reference to you having felt bad about spanking or swatting > your kid, so you contradict yourself on the issue.
The bit where I thought I had acted inappropriately was when I had smacked in response to my own anger, rather than the best interests of my children. There is a big difference between the two, and no contradiction, in my view, in believing that the former is wrong and the latter right. Please note that in both this and the previous post that you have ‘projected’ onto me a feeling of guilt (about smacking per se) that is not mine. > My other question, that noone else has been able to answer to any > satisfaction, is what is "gently" or "lightly"? Surely you swat hard > enough to hurt, or the action has absolutely no effect. Am I correct?
Yes you are. If you are interested, scripture supports this view: "No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful…" (Heb:12:11). (This was not referring to smacking, but the psychological pain caused by hardship.) In my view, ‘gently’ or ‘lightly’ means the *minimium* force necessary for it to hurt. — Steve Myers http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk
Response:
: Most crimes are committed by children these days. Persons under 18 years of age do *not* commit "most" crimes. Chris
Response:
After asking him to quote where someone said the boys in that incedent needed to be spanked. Please notice, he totally ignored that part. Could it be that it was a false trail? > =>A child can not grow without love and compassion. No one can. No one > =>is suggesting otherwise that I have seen. But, I haven’t been here > =>long, so if you just quote the passage, I’ll feel free to agree with > =>you, and not with them. > Then all you ahve to do is concede that spanking is a violent act and not > a compassionate one and we will be in total agreement, Chris.
I don’t think all spankings are violent, and I think most of them are based on compassion of a parent trying to teach his child. You didn’t give me a quote from anyone asking for what I asked for… > BTW, your mother has not been on for a week. I trust she’s all right. .
Isn’t this a "hoot", to quote Hal. Trying to get a pat on the back like LaVonne did for asking about my mom? Of course, then she went off on her sexual tangent, so now I wonder if the question wasn’t just asked to seem sympathetic. You on the otherhand have suggested that she has been gone, because she’s really me and Tammy and Lord knows who else. Besides which you are out to bring her down. Rather nice of you to consider her a supporting corner of the choice spank people. I’ll be sure she sees that part. Spare me your insincerity, little man. There are people who really care. Nice of you to send me that letter. Good to know the real Greg. Christopher son of Orenda bubba to Marilyn
Response:
=>>> As an example: I recall gently smacking the hand of one of my sons … =>> I’m also interested in the way parents apologetically add "gently" or =>> "lightly" … if you’re guilty about it, why do it? => =>I don’t use this word ‘apologetically’, simply to convey the scale of =>the smack. Also, I don’t feel guilty about anything that I’ve done =>which has the best interests of my children in mind. => =>– Then you must have a hard heart, Steve. Many times I have done what I thought at the time was best for my daughter, only to look back on it with guilt in my heart and a lump in my throat knowing that it was the wrong thing. Actually, you have felt this too, in the part of your post that you snipped in reference to you having felt bad about spanking or swatting your kid, so you contradict yourself on the issue. My other question, that noone else has been able to answer to any satisfaction, is what is "gently" or "lightly"? Surely you swat hard enough to hurt, or the action has absolutely no effect. Am I correct? Good Luck with the Parenting thing. . . Greg Lubianetzky Father to the world’s 2 Greatest Kids! ;-}
Response:
> > Deuteronomy was quoted in response to individuals who interpret > Proverbs literally … one is simply picking and > choosing Biblical passages that support one’s actions. There is no > justification for that kind of selective interpretation. > I agree with you (the ‘literal’ use of Deuteronomy/Proverbs as you > outline was by someone else). My standpoint is that we need to look at > the context to understand *all* scripture. In fact, Jesus considered > the context when using scripture, referring to things such as people’s > attitudes/culture (eg: Mtt:19:8), other scriptures (eg: Mtt:4:6,7), > people’s hidden motivations (eg: John:8:4-7) etc..
I realize that the literal use of Proverbs was by someone else. My sole purpose for quoting Deuteronomy was for illustration of selective and literal interpretation, not to debate religion or theology. And, my response to you was not meant as an attack (hope you didn’t take it that way) but to point out once again, for the benefit of those individuals who *do* attempt to use biblical justification for disiplining their children by hitting, there is no logic nor rationale for such attempts. LaVonne
Response:
> Really, now, noone can proffess they "understand" the bible…
My post claimed a ‘degree of’ understanding, which was meant to convey a small amount. A degree of understanding of the whole bible is required in order to set individual passages in some sort of context. > As an example: I recall gently smacking the hand of one of my sons … > I’m also interested in the way parents apologetically add "gently" or > "lightly" … if you’re guilty about it, why do it?
I don’t use this word ‘apologetically’, simply to convey the scale of the smack. Also, I don’t feel guilty about anything that I’ve done which has the best interests of my children in mind. — Steve Myers http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk
Response:
> (re Deut:21:18-21) > Going from "rebellious, drunkard, and glutton" to psychpathic child is > a pretty big leap here, Steve. These are the qualities Deuteronomy > considered evil, and in need of death by stoning.
The conditional phrase of the passage also lists a lack of obedience to parents and the absence of any response to discipline as key qualities making up the ‘evil’ picture. It is the latter quality (non-response to discipline) which seems to me to take it into pathological territory (this is behaviour associated with ‘Antisocial Personality Disorder’). > Deuteronomy was quoted in response to individuals who interpret > Proverbs literally … one is simply picking and > choosing Biblical passages that support one’s actions. There is no > justification for that kind of selective interpretation.
I agree with you (the ‘literal’ use of Deuteronomy/Proverbs as you outline was by someone else). My standpoint is that we need to look at the context to understand *all* scripture. In fact, Jesus considered the context when using scripture, referring to things such as people’s attitudes/culture (eg: Mtt:19:8), other scriptures (eg: Mtt:4:6,7), people’s hidden motivations (eg: John:8:4-7) etc.. — Steve Myers http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk
Response:
> >> The Deuteronomy text (Deut:21:18-21) is > This passage shows the dangers of taking individual parts of the bible > too literally – if everyone who ‘didn’t listen’ as a child was executed, > the human race would quickly die out. Rather, it is likely that the > passage was aimed at extreme cases – perhaps at children who we would > call sociopathic or psychopathic (the passage later refers to the > child’s attitude as ‘evil’ which would tend to indicate some form of > psychopathology).
Going from "rebellious, drunkard, and glutton" to psychpathic child is a pretty big leap here, Steve. These are the qualities Deuteronomy considered evil, and in need of death by stoning. > As we are no longer ‘under the law’, these sanctions against > psychopathic children are no longer appropriate. However, 3,500 years > ago, these sanctions may have been vital for the preservation of > civilised society.
Deuteronomy was quoted in response to individuals who interpret Proverbs literally as a justification for hitting children in the name of discipline. If Deuteronomy is no longer "appropriate" neither is Proverbs. If Proberbs is to be literally interpreted and appled today, so must be Deuteronomy. Otherwise, one is simply picking and choosing Biblical passages that support one’s actions. There is no justification for that kind of selective interpretation. **This was the crux of the argument.** LaVonne
Response:
=>>>As we are no longer ‘under the law’, these sanctions against =>>>psychopathic children are no longer appropriate. … =>> So selfish genes and psychopathy were the consideration when the Word of =>> God wrote the passage above? How did these people under this rule =>> determine psychopathy, what were their genetic tools and knowledge of =>> inheritance? =>You are right to point out that they didn’t know about psychopathology =>or the effect of ’selfish genes’. However, God did, and my assumption =>is that God made the rules for them in their best interests and termed =>them in ways that they could understand. Really, now, noone can proffess they "understand" the bible, as each and every passage is bound by many, many interpretations. If the Bible is to be God’s word, he certainly did *not* make it very clear to us lesser humans what he means by it all. => =>>>The passage still has some relevance today..eg: The James Bulger case =>> The Bulger case *is* horrific, should be to parents and non-parents alike. =>> However, what evidence do you have that these 2 children would have fared =>> better if they were spanked? =>None – I was not arguing this point. The point of view that I am =>arguing from is: =>- parental discipline is important to a child’s upbringing (as is love, =>security, acceptance, etc.) =>- the importance of discipline is supported by scripture =>- discipline can normally be exercised without violence =>- there may, however, be a *very few* exceptions where smacking is =>necessary, but this should only happen when the parent has full control =>of his/her emotions, and it is done in love, with the best interests of =>the child in mind. And I maintain if a parent retains full control of her/his faculties, assesses a loving discipline and operates in the best interest of the child, he/she will *not* spank the child! (As an example: I recall gently smacking the hand =>of one of my sons at 12 months when he was determined to reach out and =>touch the bars of an electric fire; providing alternative distractions =>didn’t work, and at the time I could see no other way of stopping him =>from doing himself serious damage.) Why could you not simply restrain him? move him to another location? distract him with a toy, activity, etc? I have come across this self-same situation in our own home, our wood stove(this is a steel fireplace for heat in our main living area, a definite burn hazard). Our 14-month-old was incessantly attracted to it. It took weeks to break him of the habit, telling him no, sometimes having to grab his hand away before he burned it, setting him up with alternative activities. And we *still* do not fully trust him to be in the room without total supervision. But he hasn’t gone near it other than to look at it for the last week or so. It seems to have worked, and no spanking! I’m also interested in the way parents apologetically add "gently" or "lightly" or the like as adjectives to their verb for spanking. We all know that spanking won’t have any effect if it doesn’t hurt. And you must feel bad about having hit your child to want to minimize it as you do. But a light swat or gentle smack as a spank just doesn’t cut it, does it? After all, you *do* have to hurt the child to make the spanking effective. This has been stated my many of the ardent "choice"-spankers here. Trying to minimize what you’ve done by afterward limiting your verbal description smacks of guilt. And if you’re guilty about it, why do it? Good Luck with the Parenting thing. . . Greg Lubianetzky Father to the world’s 2 Greatest Kids! ;-}
Response:
>>>> Re: the Deuteronomy text (Deut:21:18-21) (executing ‘evil’ children) >This passage shows the dangers of taking individual parts of the bible >too literally – if everyone who ‘didn’t listen’ as a child was executed, >the human race would quickly die out. > Then you point out the danger of taking the bible in any context ….. > You can’t suck and blow at the same time.
You correctly point out the folly of taking one or other extreme when looking at biblical scripture – taking it literally (out of context) or dismissing its meaning (because of the context). Understanding scripture within context, is (in my view) the goal to aim for, and it is not a simple one. Often I don’t understand it, so I’m always willing to learn more… >Rather, it is likely that the passage was aimed at extreme cases > On what do you base your interpretation of the passage …
On three things: (1) the implication that the child is ‘evil’ in verse 21; (2) a (degree of) knowledge of what scripture has to say about parent/child relationships and discipline, and (3) a (degree of) understanding of psychology and what the bible has to say about such issues. I readily accept that my interpretation of the passage may be wrong (I’m willing to listen to well-thought out opinions, and if someone puts forward an argument that is better than mine I reserve the right to change my view). >As we are no longer ‘under the law’, these sanctions against >psychopathic children are no longer appropriate. … > So selfish genes and psychopathy were the consideration when the Word of > God wrote the passage above? How did these people under this rule > determine psychopathy, what were their genetic tools and knowledge of > inheritance?
You are right to point out that they didn’t know about psychopathology or the effect of ’selfish genes’. However, God did, and my assumption is that God made the rules for them in their best interests and termed them in ways that they could understand. >The passage still has some relevance today..eg: The James Bulger case > The Bulger case *is* horrific, should be to parents and non-parents alike. > However, what evidence do you have that these 2 children would have fared > better if they were spanked?
None – I was not arguing this point. The point of view that I am arguing from is: – parental discipline is important to a child’s upbringing (as is love, security, acceptance, etc.) – the importance of discipline is supported by scripture – discipline can normally be exercised without violence – there may, however, be a *very few* exceptions where smacking is necessary, but this should only happen when the parent has full control of his/her emotions, and it is done in love, with the best interests of the child in mind. (As an example: I recall gently smacking the hand of one of my sons at 12 months when he was determined to reach out and touch the bars of an electric fire; providing alternative distractions didn’t work, and at the time I could see no other way of stopping him from doing himself serious damage.) – however, the level of child smacking exercised generally is probably inappropriate (I can also recall instances where I smacked, and thought in retrospect that I shouldn’t have done). The killers of James Bulger may have been inflicted with violence when young – I don’t know, and I don’t know what influenced them to turn out as they did. This is, however, a question of the ‘past’. The Deuteronomy passage seems to me to ask a question about the ‘future’: whether those child-killers will ever be able to integrate as normal members of society. (This is similar to a thread that has been going through some alt.psychology newsgroups asking whether psychopathology can ever be cured.) On this basis, the British Home Secretary has been seeking to change sentencing policy, so that people are released when they are deemed no longer to be a threat to society, rather than releasing them at a date predetermined by the judge at the time of the trial. This change has been opposed by the judges, but it seems to me to be more in accord with the principles of the Deuteronomy passage, where the interests of the many seem to outweigh the interests of the individual. — Steve Myers http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > =>The passage still has some relevance today, however, in terms of its > =>underlying principles: that discipline needs to be escalated in order > =>for parents to maintain control of their children; and that society > =>needs to be protected from the influence of ‘evil’, even in children. > =>The James Bulger case in the UK (where a toddler was horrificly murdered > =>by two ten year olds) has brought this debate to the fore – there has > =>been much debate about the appropriateness of releasing them when their > =>sentence is over (after 15 years). > The Bulger case *is* horrific, should be to parents and non-parents alike. > However, what evidence do you have that these 2 children would have fared > better if they were spanked? In fact, it is my recollection they both came > from disadvantaged (emotionally) families where violence was common and > love and compassion was not.
Could you kindly attempt to explain, or better yet, quote me the passage you must have read where he said those two boys would have fared better if they were spanked? Sorry, but I just couldn’t seem to find it anywhere in his post. And I read the whole thing twice. Must just be my computer. And also maybe find the quote where someone said that violence especially without love and compassion isn’t bad. But spanking should be given with love and compassion, which COULD mean it isn’t violence. Time-outs without love and compassion can’t be good either. All the positive techniques you can think of without love and compassion aren’t worth the monitor they are printed on. A child can not grow without love and compassion. No one can. No one is suggesting otherwise that I have seen. But, I haven’t been here long, so if you just quote the passage, I’ll feel free to agree with you, and not with them. Christopher son of Orenda bubba to Marilyn
Response:
=> => And also maybe find the quote where someone said that violence =>especially without love and compassion isn’t bad. But spanking should =>be given with love and compassion, which COULD mean it isn’t violence. And a bullet could be delivered with tender words and a kind face. The effect is still as devestating on the victim, perhaps even more so because of the way it’s delivered. If you enact a violent form of punishment, in the guise of love, then love is confused with violence. How is the child to know how to distinguish, say, spousal abuse from true love if the hitting they got through their formative years was put out as a loving act? If you tell the child "I’m hitting you because I love you and it’s good for you", what message does that send them off with for their later years? I say it’s the wrong one. =>Time-outs without love and compassion can’t be good either. All the =>positive techniques you can think of without love and compassion aren’t =>worth the monitor they are printed on. You’re right, of course. But when the technique itself flies in the face of the love and compassion then it too is worthless, or even worse, damaging. =>A child can not grow without love and compassion. No one can. No one =>is suggesting otherwise that I have seen. But, I haven’t been here =>long, so if you just quote the passage, I’ll feel free to agree with =>you, and not with them. Then all you ahve to do is concede that spanking is a violent act and not a compassionate one and we will be in total agreement, Chris. BTW, your mother has not been on for a week. I trust she’s all right. . .? Good Luck with the Parenting thing. . . Greg Lubianetzky Father to the world’s 2 Greatest Kids! ;-}
Response:
> Most crimes are committed by children these days.
Facts, please. What makes you think this is true? — John Saunders
Response:
> Most crimes are committed by children these days.
Excuse me — want to give some facts, or where in the world did you get an absolute statement like this? Or, is that not really a fact, but just your opinion? The Deuteronomy text is > basically saying the incorrigible criminal, even if a child, even YOUR > child (that is the thrust of the passage, that blood should not be so thick > that you allow a "cancer" to remain in the comminity) should be executed if > they refuse to listen and obey.
Well, there it is — children who do not listen and obey should be executed. Children who do not listen and obey are a "cancer" to the community. KILL THEM– The result of NOT doing this is becoming > evident in our own society when we find ourselves nervously cringing when a > gang of kids comes by.
Well, you’re right. If you do not execute these kids, there they will be, in the corner, on you block. A terrible price, wouldn’t you say? I’d say — kill ‘em before they get you. Don’t trust ‘em. Get the stones ready. Follow Deuteronomy, whenever Proverbs fails! LaVonne
Response:
>> The Deuteronomy text (Deut:21:18-21) is > basically saying the incorrigible criminal, even if a child, even YOUR > child (that is the thrust of the passage, that blood should not be so thick > that you allow a "cancer" to remain in the comminity) should be executed if > they refuse to listen and obey. > Well, there it is — children who do not listen and obey should be > executed. Children who do not listen and obey are a "cancer" to the > community. KILL THEM–
This passage shows the dangers of taking individual parts of the bible too literally – if everyone who ‘didn’t listen’ as a child was executed, the human race would quickly die out. Rather, it is likely that the passage was aimed at extreme cases – perhaps at children who we would call sociopathic or psychopathic (the passage later refers to the child’s attitude as ‘evil’ which would tend to indicate some form of psychopathology). As we are no longer ‘under the law’, these sanctions against psychopathic children are no longer appropriate. However, 3,500 years ago, these sanctions may have been vital for the preservation of civilised society. For instance: there is some evidence of a possible genetic element to being psychopathic. Such a ’selfish gene’ could take over the whole population if left unfettered. Perhaps execution was the only realistic safeguard in those days. The passage still has some relevance today, however, in terms of its underlying principles: that discipline needs to be escalated in order for parents to maintain control of their children; and that society needs to be protected from the influence of ‘evil’, even in children. The James Bulger case in the UK (where a toddler was horrificly murdered by two ten year olds) has brought this debate to the fore – there has been much debate about the appropriateness of releasing them when their sentence is over (after 15 years). — Steve Myers http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk
Response:
=>>> The Deuteronomy text (Deut:21:18-21) is =>>> basically saying the incorrigible criminal, even if a child, even YOUR =>>> child (that is the thrust of the passage, that blood should not be so thick =>>> that you allow a "cancer" to remain in the comminity) should be executed if =>>> they refuse to listen and obey. =>> Well, there it is — children who do not listen and obey should be =>> executed. Children who do not listen and obey are a "cancer" to the =>> community. KILL THEM– => =>This passage shows the dangers of taking individual parts of the bible =>too literally – if everyone who ‘didn’t listen’ as a child was executed, =>the human race would quickly die out. Then you point out the danger of taking the bible in any context, because that is the problem; unless you take it literally, it can be taken in *any* context. Where it says to stone to death, you may say "well that must mean spank". Where it says something else, you can tailor it to fit what *you* believe it says or means to say. This is the greatest fallacy of theology today – when the bible is challenged on the grounds that it is simply a story retold over generations, modified to suit, added to and subtracted from, the argument arises: "No, this is the Word of God". But when the Word doesn’t fit with what you think is correct, you say "well, it doesn’t really mean *that*, it couldn’t, not today…". You can’t suck and blow at the same time. Rather, it is likely that the =>passage was aimed at extreme cases – perhaps at children who we would =>call sociopathic or psychopathic (the passage later refers to the =>child’s attitude as ‘evil’ which would tend to indicate some form of =>psychopathology). On what do you base your interpretation of the passage and its likely origin? There is no proviso, no caveat I know of. How do you arrive at your conclusion other than perhaps a gut feeling? => =>As we are no longer ‘under the law’, these sanctions against =>psychopathic children are no longer appropriate. However, 3,500 years =>ago, these sanctions may have been vital for the preservation of =>civilised society. For instance: there is some evidence of a possible =>genetic element to being psychopathic. Such a ’selfish gene’ could take =>over the whole population if left unfettered. Perhaps execution was the =>only realistic safeguard in those days. So selfish genes and psychopathy were the consideration when the Word of God wrote the passage above? How did these people under this rule determine psychopathy, what were their genetic tools and knowledge of inheritance? => =>The passage still has some relevance today, however, in terms of its =>underlying principles: that discipline needs to be escalated in order =>for parents to maintain control of their children; and that society =>needs to be protected from the influence of ‘evil’, even in children. =>The James Bulger case in the UK (where a toddler was horrificly murdered =>by two ten year olds) has brought this debate to the fore – there has =>been much debate about the appropriateness of releasing them when their =>sentence is over (after 15 years). The Bulger case *is* horrific, should be to parents and non-parents alike. However, what evidence do you have that these 2 children would have fared better if they were spanked? In fact, it is my recollection they both came from disadvantaged (emotionally) families where violence was common and love and compassion was not. Good Luck with the Parenting thing. . . Greg Lubianetzky Father to the world’s 2 Greatest Kids! ;-}
Response:
We are certainly still the *children* of our parents. And many of our laws still require the death penalty for certain instances. Ted Bundy was someone’s rebellious child and I think the law in Deuteronomy was applied to him. You seem to imply by your argument that if one practice is not currently accepted in vogue that the entire content of scripture as a guide should be discounted. You have claimed yourself to be a Christian of which I am sure you learned from these same scriptures you have discounted. It seems illogical to me that you make these attempts to discount scripture with scripture, and then call yourself a follower of that same scripture. I would like to hear how you rationalize your apparent disdain for what the scripture recommends (capital punishment, spanking, etc.) with your claim to be a follower of the same. Richard (who had some spare time on Thanksgiving night after tucking in all his little Gifts from God.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: > > Here is what Ian Gibson, in his book "The English Vice: Beating, > >Sex, and Shame in Victorian England and Beyond," (p. 49) has to say about > >the phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child": > Searching Proverbes…. > 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that > loveth him chasteneth him betimes. > 22:15 Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] > the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. > 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou > beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. > 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his > soul from hell. > 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left [to > himself] bringeth his mother to shame. > Can’t seem to find "spare the rod and spoil the child" But I seem > to have found allusions to it. Make your own judjment as you see > fit. > Well, the phrase obviously isn’t in the Bible. But, since you bring > up Proverbs in relation to beating children with rods, I’m wondering > how your judgment views Deuteronomy 21:18-21; which clearly advocates > stoning rebellious children to death, when previous attempts at > chastisement have failed? > LaVonne
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Well, the phrase obviously isn’t in the Bible. But, since you bring > up Proverbs in relation to beating children with rods, I’m wondering > how your judgment views Deuteronomy 21:18-21; which clearly advocates > stoning rebellious children to death, when previous attempts at > chastisement have failed? > LaVonne > hmmm, let’s think about it? Just how long do YOU think repeat offenders > should be allowed to remain in the general population? If one of these > miscreants be allowed to prey on the innocent, law abiding citizens? > Stoning….perhaps not, but removal of sociopathic misfits from the > streets sure would make me feel better, and make any future offender think > twice.
I thought we were talking about children. I certainly was. LaVonne
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Well, the phrase obviously isn’t in the Bible. But, since you bring > > up Proverbs in relation to beating children with rods, I’m wondering > > how your judgment views Deuteronomy 21:18-21; which clearly advocates > > stoning rebellious children to death, when previous attempts at > > chastisement have failed? > > LaVonne > hmmm, let’s think about it? Just how long do YOU think repeat offenders > should be allowed to remain in the general population? If one of these > miscreants be allowed to prey on the innocent, law abiding citizens? > Stoning….perhaps not, but removal of sociopathic misfits from the > streets sure would make me feel better, and make any future offender think > twice. > I thought we were talking about children. I certainly was. > LaVonne
Most crimes are committed by children these days. The Deuteronomy text is basically saying the incorrigible criminal, even if a child, even YOUR child (that is the thrust of the passage, that blood should not be so thick that you allow a "cancer" to remain in the comminity) should be executed if they refuse to listen and obey. The result of NOT doing this is becoming evident in our own society when we find ourselves nervously cringing when a gang of kids comes by. This whole concept is difficult to ponder, and is painful to consider. Don’t think that those of us who believe in the continuing validity of the Law enjoy every single aspect of it! God made Man, and gave him an "owners manual" — the Law. I might not like certain instructions, but I’m not omniscient enough to completely trust my own finite judgement. God meant for his creation to enjoy life. But the further people drift from His Law, the more unhappy and nihilistic they become! For a better understanding of God’s Law, I recommend you get the book "The Institutes of Biblical Law" by Rousas J. Rushdoony (Ross House Books, 1973). It is a rather large book (nearly 700 pages), which tries to illustrate the reason and meaning behind the Ten Commandments.
Response:
> Well, the phrase obviously isn’t in the Bible. But, since you bring > up Proverbs in relation to beating children with rods, I’m wondering > how your judgment views Deuteronomy 21:18-21; which clearly advocates > stoning rebellious children to death, when previous attempts at > chastisement have failed? > LaVonne
hmmm, let’s think about it? Just how long do YOU think repeat offenders should be allowed to remain in the general population? If one of these miscreants be allowed to prey on the innocent, law abiding citizens? Stoning….perhaps not, but removal of sociopathic misfits from the streets sure would make me feel better, and make any future offender think twice.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Here is what Ian Gibson, in his book "The English Vice: Beating, >Sex, and Shame in Victorian England and Beyond," (p. 49) has to say about >the phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child": > Searching Proverbes…. > 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that > loveth him chasteneth him betimes. > 22:15 Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] > the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. > 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou > beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. > 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his > soul from hell. > 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left [to > himself] bringeth his mother to shame. > Can’t seem to find "spare the rod and spoil the child" But I seem > to have found allusions to it. Make your own judjment as you see > fit.
Well, the phrase obviously isn’t in the Bible. But, since you bring up Proverbs in relation to beating children with rods, I’m wondering how your judgment views Deuteronomy 21:18-21; which clearly advocates stoning rebellious children to death, when previous attempts at chastisement have failed? LaVonne
Response:
Here is what Ian Gibson, in his book "The English Vice: Beating, Sex, and Shame in Victorian England and Beyond," (p. 49) has to say about the phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child": "This was universally attributed by the Victorians to Solomon, but in fact comes from Samuel Butler’s satirical poem _Hudibras_, published in 1664 (Part II, Canto I, 1. 884). In this section of Butler’s poem an amorous lady urges Sir Hudibras to undergo a whipping on her account – as a fitting and tradition-hallowed proof of knightly love and also, perhaps, as a parody on the practices of the religious flagellants. It is clear from her words that Butler has projected onto this lady a dubious interest in what the the Victorians loved to call the modus operandi of fustigation. The relevant lines for our purpose read (it is the lady speaking): But since our sex’s modesty Will not allow I should be by, Bring me, on oath, a fair account, And honour too, when you have done it; And I’ll admit you to the place You claim as due in my good grace. If matrimony and hanging go By dest’ny, why not whipping too? What medicine else can cure the fits Of lovers, when they lose their wits? Love is a boy, by poets styled, Then spare the rod and spoil the child. "’The passage as a whole,’ wrote Henry Salt, ‘is hardly decorous enough for quotation,’ Moreover, ‘it is significant that a witty writer, who frankly treats the subject of whipping as what it is – an _indecent_ subject – should have provided many generations with a supposed precept from the Bible!’" Chris
Response:
That was back before jesus died on the cross for man’s sins. Now juses delivers from evil, not the rod. — Yes, at one time god tried to guide me, but through the bright light I could not see where he was leading me. Then I became one with the darkness. It helped me to filter out the light, to see past the light, to see where I was being guided, it was then that I saw the light was trying to lead me off a cliff.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Here is what Ian Gibson, in his book "The English Vice: Beating, >Sex, and Shame in Victorian England and Beyond," (p. 49) has to say about >the phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child": > "This was universally attributed by the Victorians to Solomon, >but in fact comes from Samuel Butler’s satirical poem _Hudibras_, >published in 1664 (Part II, Canto I, 1. 884). In this section of >Butler’s poem an amorous lady urges Sir Hudibras to undergo a whipping on >her account – as a fitting and tradition-hallowed proof of knightly love >and also, perhaps, as a parody on the practices of the religious >flagellants. It is clear from her words that Butler has projected onto >this lady a dubious interest in what the the Victorians loved to call the >modus operandi of fustigation. The relevant lines for our purpose read >(it is the lady speaking): > But since our sex’s modesty > Will not allow I should be by, > Bring me, on oath, a fair account, > And honour too, when you have done it; > And I’ll admit you to the place > You claim as due in my good grace. > If matrimony and hanging go > By dest’ny, why not whipping too? > What medicine else can cure the fits > Of lovers, when they lose their wits? > Love is a boy, by poets styled, > Then spare the rod and spoil the child. > "’The passage as a whole,’ wrote Henry Salt, ‘is hardly decorous >enough for quotation,’ Moreover, ‘it is significant that a witty writer, >who frankly treats the subject of whipping as what it is – an _indecent_ >subject – should have provided many generations with a supposed precept >from the Bible!’" >Chris
Searching Proverbes…. 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. 22:15 Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left [to himself] bringeth his mother to shame. Can’t seem to find "spare the rod and spoil the child" But I seem to have found allusions to it. Make your own judjment as you see fit.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.