There is a uniqueness of inherent responsibility and love you're supposed to have for your child. They are literally part of you genetically.
Lots of things were done for long periods but the time length of usage doesn't make it automatically valid or proper. People confuse surviving as being the same as thriving. I know lots of abused ch…
There is a uniqueness of inherent responsibility and love you're supposed to have for your child. They are literally part of you genetically.
Lots of things were done for long periods but the time length of usage doesn't make it automatically valid or proper. People confuse surviving as being the same as thriving. I know lots of abused children who appear to be doing fine today but they'd still be wrong to encourage abuse because it "worked for them".
What I'm saying is that there is a better way than how you were raised. Adults tend to grow up with Stockholm syndrome about how they were treated by their parents even though deep down, they know that it was faulty.
Also, I follow the conduct of Jesus and God's reckoning on societies that mistreat children. Am I to believe that Jesus or God, who displays a special affinity for innocent children, would encourage you to inflict pain on a child?
Proverbs is old philosophy inspired by God but the conduct of Jesus what I follow. The point of that proverb is to discipline your child and it doesn't command that you use a literal rod (or object) to hit your child. It's saying discipline them...you can do that without hitting them.
I know lots of abused children who appear to be doing fine today but they'd still be wrong to encourage abuse because it "worked for them".
True. However, the ENTIRE issue is whether or not there's a difference between "discipline" and "abuse." Your original post suggests that corporal punishment is, inherently, abuse. That's the premise I'm disagreeing with. I'm not defending abuse. I'm simply saying it isn't the same thing as discipline.
You're right that Proverbs is old philosophy. You note that the longevity of a practice doesn't necessarily make it proper. I admit that's true...but I think history ought to be a guide. We've got quite a large dataset of societies behind us that see something positive in a certain role for corporal punishment.
You reference the example of Jesus. Presumably, this is the same Jesus who forms a cord of whips, flips over tables and drives money changers from the Temple (Jhn. 2:15-17)...the same Jesus whom Paul says will "take vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel" (2 Thess. 1:8)?
You get right to the heart of the question in asking, "Would Jesus encourage you to inflict pain on a child?" I say, it would depend. For example, if my child were about to touch a hot stove and I smack their hand away. That smack might hurt...but it would be preferable to the pain and scarring of the child touching the stove. Often, the child doesn't realize that in the moment. All he or she knows is that I struck them. The knowledge and perception of a child is important, but it cannot be determinative of whether a thing is right or not. I believe we are God's children and that in His role as Father, He sometimes assigns punishments to us for our own good. As Hebrews 12:11 testifies, "No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it."
I don't think that's some kind of weird one-off principle that only applies to God. I suspect that's precisely why the legitimate use of discipline has been recognized by cultures all over human history. I think it's baked into the nature of Creation. It can certainly be abused (like virtually any good thing) but that doesn't mean it has no value or place.
I think I'm gonna let this be my last word on this topic for now. Thank you VERY MUCH for taking the time to hear me out and response, Adam. I wish nothing but the best for you, your family, and your continuing career.
Great answer to the old argument "but everyone everywhere beat their kids for thousands of years so there must be something good about it" and "but the bible".
Every culture engaged in slavery in some manner for thousands of years and it is even condoned in the Bible. Doesn't make it okay.
There is a uniqueness of inherent responsibility and love you're supposed to have for your child. They are literally part of you genetically.
Lots of things were done for long periods but the time length of usage doesn't make it automatically valid or proper. People confuse surviving as being the same as thriving. I know lots of abused children who appear to be doing fine today but they'd still be wrong to encourage abuse because it "worked for them".
What I'm saying is that there is a better way than how you were raised. Adults tend to grow up with Stockholm syndrome about how they were treated by their parents even though deep down, they know that it was faulty.
Also, I follow the conduct of Jesus and God's reckoning on societies that mistreat children. Am I to believe that Jesus or God, who displays a special affinity for innocent children, would encourage you to inflict pain on a child?
Proverbs is old philosophy inspired by God but the conduct of Jesus what I follow. The point of that proverb is to discipline your child and it doesn't command that you use a literal rod (or object) to hit your child. It's saying discipline them...you can do that without hitting them.
I know lots of abused children who appear to be doing fine today but they'd still be wrong to encourage abuse because it "worked for them".
True. However, the ENTIRE issue is whether or not there's a difference between "discipline" and "abuse." Your original post suggests that corporal punishment is, inherently, abuse. That's the premise I'm disagreeing with. I'm not defending abuse. I'm simply saying it isn't the same thing as discipline.
You're right that Proverbs is old philosophy. You note that the longevity of a practice doesn't necessarily make it proper. I admit that's true...but I think history ought to be a guide. We've got quite a large dataset of societies behind us that see something positive in a certain role for corporal punishment.
You reference the example of Jesus. Presumably, this is the same Jesus who forms a cord of whips, flips over tables and drives money changers from the Temple (Jhn. 2:15-17)...the same Jesus whom Paul says will "take vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel" (2 Thess. 1:8)?
You get right to the heart of the question in asking, "Would Jesus encourage you to inflict pain on a child?" I say, it would depend. For example, if my child were about to touch a hot stove and I smack their hand away. That smack might hurt...but it would be preferable to the pain and scarring of the child touching the stove. Often, the child doesn't realize that in the moment. All he or she knows is that I struck them. The knowledge and perception of a child is important, but it cannot be determinative of whether a thing is right or not. I believe we are God's children and that in His role as Father, He sometimes assigns punishments to us for our own good. As Hebrews 12:11 testifies, "No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it."
I don't think that's some kind of weird one-off principle that only applies to God. I suspect that's precisely why the legitimate use of discipline has been recognized by cultures all over human history. I think it's baked into the nature of Creation. It can certainly be abused (like virtually any good thing) but that doesn't mean it has no value or place.
I think I'm gonna let this be my last word on this topic for now. Thank you VERY MUCH for taking the time to hear me out and response, Adam. I wish nothing but the best for you, your family, and your continuing career.
It’s also about trust. If a child can’t trust his parents not to hurt them, who can they trust?
I've read that that passage about the rod is referring to a shepherd's rod. As in, guide your children.
Great answer to the old argument "but everyone everywhere beat their kids for thousands of years so there must be something good about it" and "but the bible".
Every culture engaged in slavery in some manner for thousands of years and it is even condoned in the Bible. Doesn't make it okay.