Spare the Rod.

studiorat

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Is it correct to subject children to violence and public humiliation to encourage healthy emotional development and good behavior?

Why then does the Bible say what it does in Proverbs?

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Is it correct to subject children to violence and public humiliation to encourage healthy emotional development and good behavior?

Why then does the Bible say what it does in Proverbs?

Physical punishment for rebellion or dangerous neglect is a perfectly proper method of discipline. The idea would be that it occurs when verbal correction or withdrawal of privileges has failed.

Where do you see public humiliation in those texts?

2 Timothy 1:8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Victor

I'm not sure its an absolute literal instruction to hit children. However, children (and God's children, i.e. everyone) needs to learn that actions have reactions. Crimes have punishments. Its better to receive a small punishment for a small offence that a big one.

However the punishment is given, it needs to be tempered by the following - beating or abusing a child (again children and God's children) is a "very bad thing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Children

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

krudler

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure its an absolute literal instruction to hit children. However, children (and God's children, i.e. everyone) needs to learn that actions have reactions. Crimes have punishments. Its better to receive a small punishment for a small offence that a big one.

Its says "spare the rod" not "spare the sit down and have a heart to heart explaining the difference between right and wrong" its pretty clear it does mean to hit, you dont use a rod to cuddle kids now do you?

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Physical punishment for rebellion or dangerous neglect is a perfectly proper method of discipline. The idea would be that it occurs when verbal correction or withdrawal of privileges has failed.

Where do you see public humiliation in those texts?

I was refering to the humiliation of corporal punishment, obviously it's not in the text, but in the sense of it being used in schools etc. where the aspect of public humiliation would be a factor. Not in Ireland, but it does still exist in quite a few "western" countries.

Likewise there is no mention of using it when verbal correction or withdrawl of privileges fails in the text. Nor does it seem to be inferred.

strobe

wolfsbane wrote: »

Physical punishment for rebellion or dangerous neglect is a perfectly proper method of discipline. The idea would be that it occurs when verbal correction or withdrawal of privileges has failed.

But of course if you are a good parent you will never have to resort to beating your kids. It will never come up. Even if you are a completely useless parent and can't get them to behave without threatening and bullying them, that doesn't mean you should. It's your failure, not thiers, they shouldn't suffer for your short comings.

hinault

Clip round the ear when warranted, never did a child harm.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

But of course if you are a good parent you will never have to resort to beating your kids. It will never come up. Even if you are a completely useless parent and can't get them to behave without threatening and bullying them, that doesn't mean you should. It's your failure, not thiers, they shouldn't suffer for your short comings.

Let me guess. You blame the parents :pac:

Glenster

When a kid does something wrong I see no problem with physical punishment.

Dont beat them if they've done nothing wrong, obviously, but appropriate physical punishment is as warranted as any other sort of appropriate punishment.

No-one is saying kick the crap out of kids.

Fanny Cradock

I think a bit of context here is required. Proverbs is best thought of as "wisdom literature" or realistic observations about life that was passed on from author to reader. In the case of the Hebrew Proverbs it may well have been Solomon imparting his knowledge to his son on how best to live life. Ernest Lucas notes that the content of Proverbs is similar in both "form and content to Egyptian and Mesopotamian proverbs". In short, it was how the wise imparted knowledge (as opposed to strict laws) to the younger generation.

Depending on how one chooses to view the passages mentioned, I think that the verses can be read in two ways:

1) As an encouragement to dole out physical punishment;
2) As an encouragement to physically discipline a child.

The difference between the two is a matter of motivation and control. The former is revenge acted on with anger, the latter is a method of correction that is ideally not done in the heat of the moment. While it could be that the instruction was clearer to the intended audience, I feel that is is important to bear in mind a verse like Ephesians 6:4 or Colossians 3:21 when reading Proverbs.

Assuming we can agree on the intended meaning of the verses - I've suggested either option 1 or 2 - then we are still left with the rather subjective discussion about whether it is right or wrong to physically discipline a child. By way of personal experience, I was physically disciplined as a child, yet I don't believe that it did me any harm - quite the contrary as I could be a little bollox. Of course, if we are to debate this particular aspect - the rights and wrongs of smacking etc. - it isn't strictly a religious/ irreligious divide.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let me guess. You blame the parents :pac:

No. I blame the incompetent scumbags that are either unwilling or too stupid to learn how to do thier job properly. (they may have produced offspring but I will only call them parents when someone presses a gun to my head) :pac:

Fanny Cradock

What do you mean by properly?

Soul Winner

I'm glad to say that I rarely ever had to physically discipline my kids, but that's because I was really good at verbally disciplining them. I'd give them a good dressing down if they got out of line, so resorting to physical discipline was very rare indeed thank God. But I am all for it if it is genuinely warranted. If the kid cannot learn the easy way then by golly they will have to learn the hard way. But any parent who actually takes pleasure in this sort of disciplining is in my opinion a sick b*****d. I hate it when in those rare occasions one of my kids is being so difficult that they force me to be physical with them in order to get through to them. And I think that the fact that Solomon had to actually exhort his readers with these words just shows that they too did not take pleasure in dispensing such punishment on their kids, but at the same time knew that it was for their own good more than anything else.

PDN

Haven't a clue what 'public humiliation' has to do with Proverbs. In fact, as far as I can see, methods of discipline other than corporal correction tend to use public humiliation more.

Also I can't think of anything more publicly humiliating than the way in which some parents permit their children to behave like spoilt monsters - throwing tantrums in supermarkets while Mummy ineffectually says,"Now,now,Johnny, let's be nice!"

An occasional well-deserved smack shouldn't hurt a child - no more than when an animal gives its pups or cubs a gentle warning bite.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

I was refering to the humiliation of corporal punishment, obviously it's not in the text, but in the sense of it being used in schools etc. where the aspect of public humiliation would be a factor. Not in Ireland, but it does still exist in quite a few "western" countries.

Likewise there is no mention of using it when verbal correction or withdrawl of privileges fails in the text. Nor does it seem to be inferred.

Yes, public humiliation is involved in some countries/eras. It is a key factor in our modern judicial system of courts and prisons. No physical element to it now, of course. Unless one includes the batoning/tazering of those who refuse to come along quietly.

But the Bible text referred to the home. And it is in the context of how God deals with us in our error - if a word of rebuke is enough, that's what we get. If we refuse, the stick comes in.

That's how I raised my family too. And how I was raised, even by unbelieving parents. Any time the stick was used, it was when rebuke did not avail.

_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 12:5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons:


“ My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD,
Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”

7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

wolfsbane

strobe wrote: »

But of course if you are a good parent you will never have to resort to beating your kids. It will never come up. Even if you are a completely useless parent and can't get them to behave without threatening and bullying them, that doesn't mean you should. It's your failure, not thiers, they shouldn't suffer for your short comings.

Your kids are in for a nasty surprise when they come of age. They will find strangers and society as a whole will respond to their faults with more than empty words. You are doing them no favours in allowing them to succeed in their rebellion.

_________________________________________________________________
Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Blueboyd

Clearly it says so in the proverbs cos the bible is not God's word more than this forum - but word of men - as much as this forum is. I don't believe Jaysus hit any kid so maybe everyone should follow his example.

I 'm also glad that corporal punishment is a crime where I live and so severe crime that it can be prosecuted by the public prosecutor without the consent of anyone else.

Fanny Cradock

Please stop saying "Jaysus"

StormWarrior

wolfsbane wrote: »

it is in the context of how God deals with us in our error - if a word of rebuke is enough, that's what we get. If we refuse, the stick comes in..

But in the other threads people are talking about how we are free moral beings, if "the stick comes in" from God when we refuse, how is that freedom?

PDN

StormWarrior wrote: »

But in the other threads people are talking about how we are free moral beings, if "the stick comes in" from God when we refuse, how is that freedom?

Freedom means you make your choices and you face the consequences of your choices.

Freedom does not mean that your choices are devoid of consquences.

vodafoneproblem

studiorat wrote: »

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

Is it correct to subject children to violence and public humiliation to encourage healthy emotional development and good behavior?

Why then does the Bible say what it does in Proverbs?

My take on it is, that in the absence of you being a master child psychologist who knows the perfect non-physical response (if one exists) to get a child to behave better, it's better to give your child a simple (obviously not OTT) slap to discourage bad behaviour rather than doing nothing and letting them become spoiled brats and obnoxious adults. If you can correct them without slapping, then great. If you can't, then you shouldn't just do nothing.

Graces7

hinault wrote: »

Clip round the ear when warranted, never did a child harm.

\

One of the causes of deafness, my friend, is that way of hitting.

flja

I have yet to have one single advocate of physical discipline make any effort to answer these questions:

Deuteronomy 25:3 states that when an adult is to be subjected to physical punishment, i.e., whipping, he is to receive no more than 40 lashes.

So, if God imposes a limit on the number of times an adult can be struck as punishment, why did He not impose a limit on the number of times a child can be struck as punishment?

And if God commands us to use physical force on children in order to discipline and punish them, why did He not set any standards for when such physical force is to be used? Why has God left it up to individual adults to decide how their children are to be disciplined and punished with physical force knowing that no two adults will use the same criteria on all children and no single adult is likely to apply the same criteria all the time to the same child?

If God is a God of justice, why was He so lax in creating a standard for hitting children?

And why should anyone take parenting advise from a man (King Solomon, the supposed author of the Book of Proverbs) who had a thousand wives and concubines; worshipped rocks and was such a tyrant that he drove his subjects to rebellion and thereby deprived his son of the son’s rightful intact inheritance, i.e., a united kingdom?

The Hebrew word that that the King James Bible translates as “rod” can also mean club. So are we supposed to club our children when they misbehave? And what is the definition of “misbehave”? What happens when two adults, say a single child’s mother and father, cannot agree on when their child is misbehaving?

flja

Glenster wrote: »

No-one is saying kick the crap out of kids.

But isn’t this exactly what happens a lot of the time because some thug of a parent believes he is justified in hitting his child?

flja

PDN wrote: »

An occasional well-deserved smack shouldn't hurt a child - no more than when an animal gives its pups or cubs a gentle warning bite.

So you equate humans with animals?

JimiTime

flja wrote: »

I have yet to have one single advocate of physical discipline make any effort to answer these questions:

Deuteronomy 25:3 states that when an adult is to be subjected to physical punishment, i.e., whipping, he is to receive no more than 40 lashes.

So, if God imposes a limit on the number of times an adult can be struck as punishment, why did He not impose a limit on the number of times a child can be struck as punishment?

Maybe because this in no way relates to a corrective 'rod' of teaching in the context of child dicsipline

And if God commands us to use physical force on children in order to discipline and punish them, why did He not set any standards for when such physical force is to be used?

He didn't 'command' us to use physical force on children.

Why has God left it up to individual adults to decide how their children are to be disciplined and punished with physical force knowing that no two adults will use the same criteria on all children and no single adult is likely to apply the same criteria all the time to the same child?

Maybe because the assumption is a normal parent will love their child, and not seek to 'lash' them, and treat their mistakes and misbehaviour like crime.

If God is a God of justice, why was He so lax in creating a standard for hitting children?

And why should anyone take parenting advise from a man (King Solomon, the supposed author of the Book of Proverbs) who had a thousand wives and concubines; worshipped rocks and was such a tyrant that he drove his subjects to rebellion and thereby deprived his son of the son’s rightful intact inheritance, i.e., a united kingdom?

The Hebrew word that that the King James Bible translates as “rod” can also mean club. So are we supposed to club our children when they misbehave? And what is the definition of “misbehave”? What happens when two adults, say a single child’s mother and father, cannot agree on when their child is misbehaving?

This is either trolling or, well..........

flja

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your kids are in for a nasty surprise when they come of age. They will find strangers and society as a whole will respond to their faults with more than empty words. You are doing them no favours in allowing them to succeed in their rebellion.

I used to be a classroom teacher at a private Christian school here in Florida. I had to give up my job in part because I found myself day after day in the uncomfortable position of wanting to hit children that would not respect my authority as an adult and teacher.

I was raised by a divorced mother in an environment of physical neglect, emotional abuse and often physical abuse. I have made the conscious decision to never have children because my own childhood was so horrendous. But as a classroom teacher I wanted to hit some of my students out of frustration.

But in retrospect I don’t see the behavior of the students as their fault. All of them had been diagnosed with a learning disability of some sort or another, i.e., most of then were lazy brats who made no effort to do their school work. Most of them had divorced parents. Most were being raised with no father around most of the time. So most of them were being raised the same way I was raised. If you put a child in this kind of environment, can you blame the child if he turns out to be a brat?

flja

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe because this in no way relates to a corrective 'rod' of teaching in the context of child dicsipline

Then explain what this corrective rod is.

He didn't 'command' us to use physical force on children.

Oh? Then what is the Bible?

Maybe because the assumption is a normal parent will love their child, and not seek to 'lash' them, and treat their mistakes and misbehaviour like crime.

Since when does God make assumptions?

The rod discussed in Proverbs is not meant to cause physical pain or humiliation of any kind. God did not regulate the use of physical force on children because He does not approve the use of physical force on children.

This is either trolling or, well..........

Go to Hell.

Fanny Cradock

Jimi and flja, please calm down.

PDN

flja wrote: »

But as a classroom teacher I wanted to hit some of my students out of frustration.

In that case it's probably good that you're not in that position any more.

Fanny Cradock

flja wrote: »

So you equate humans with animals?

Quite aside from the fact that we are animals (in the order of primates), it is blindingly clear that PDN was using it as a comparison.

JimiTime

Go to Hell.

First of all, my apologies for my accusation and implication. It wasn't nice, and I jumped the gun. May I rather flip flop on my rather unfortunate first post to you and instead extend a welcome to the forum.:o

flja wrote: »

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Then explain what this corrective rod is.

In the simplest of terms, a child who is unresponsive to the authority of its parents, needs, for their sake, something which gives them discipline. It does not 'have' to be a slap on the hand, but rather something that makes the child respect the parents authority and be obedient. An example:

A child who respects the authority of his parents will respond to 'Stop, don't go any further'.
A child who doesn't may not. No biggie in isolation. However, put that in the context of being near a busy road.

Since when does God make assumptions?

That was sarcasm on my part. You were equating parental correction, with crime and punishment.

The rod discussed in Proverbs is not meant to cause physical pain or humiliation of any kind.

Indeed, that is not its intention at all. It is meant to provide discipline, respect. Its motive is to teach and correct.

God did not regulate the use of physical force on children because He does not approve the use of physical force on children.

You say in your other post that you had an abusive upbringing. If this is so, then my sympathies. It is truly awful that such things happen. However, there's a world of a difference between abuse, and a child getting a slap on the wrist for misbehaving or being disobedient. It is unwise to equate the two, but all too often the victims of abusive upbringings find it hard to differentiate. IMO, this is part of the scar left by such an upbringing.

robindch

flja wrote: »

But in retrospect I don’t see the behavior of the students as their fault. All of them had been diagnosed with a learning disability of some sort or another, i.e., most of then were lazy brats who made no effort to do their school work. Most of them had divorced parents. Most were being raised with no father around most of the time. [...] If you put a child in this kind of environment, can you blame the child if he turns out to be a brat?

Bratty kids are, in my experience, far more often the result of inept and crappy parenting than having one or other parent absent, and the same goes for my experience of teachers and teaching. Once somebody thinks they've to start using physical force to assert their opinions, whether concerning the "authority" they feel they're due or anything else, they've lost the battle entirely.

Respect is something that's earned and not something that's beaten, shouted or lectured into people.

A similar thread is currently open in A+A here.

.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Once somebody thinks they've to start using physical force to assert their opinions, whether concerning the "authority" they feel they're due or anything else, they've lost the battle entirely.

I really hope that that was not remotely directed at what I posted Robin, because if it is I can only sigh at your inability to understand basic English. If its not, then don't mind me, Nothing to see here.

Respect is not something that's beaten, shouted or lectured into people.

Completely agree.

flja

PDN wrote: »

In that case it's probably good that you're not in that position any more.

By some counts 60% of the people who were subject to child abuse end up being child abusers themselves. However, there is no hard and fast dividing line between discipline and abuse. Legal standards exist in some situations, but these standards cannot take every parent-child or teacher-student situation into account. The only safe thing we can do is eliminate the mindset whereby adults believe it is OK for them to use physical force against a child. Because physical discipline against children can too easily lead to child abuse, I cannot fathom that any just and righteous, let along loving, God would ever condone using physical discipline on children.

flja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Quite aside from the fact that we are animals (in the order of primates), it is blindingly clear that PDN was using it as a comparison.

Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Your line of thinking runs straight to Auschwitz.

Zombrex

flja wrote: »

Your line of thinking runs straight to Auschwitz.

Why do the "passionate" posters always use weird font configurations?

Flja are you posting from a 3rd party client?

flja

JimiTime wrote: »

First of all, my apologies for my accusation and implication. It wasn't nice, and I jumped the gun. May I rather flip flop on my rather unfortunate first post to you and instead extend a welcome to the forum.

Accepted.

In the simplest of terms, a child who is unresponsive to the authority of its parents, needs, for their sake, something which gives them discipline.

Discipline will never work when it is applied in the absence of respect and my respect must be earned. To this day my mother has no qualms about bragging to total strangers how she beat me as a child (her words, not mine). She insists that the best thing for a boy is a good healthy fear of his mama. The bitch that gave birth to me quickly forfeited my love and she has never been entitled to my respect. She is responsible for all of my faults and none of my qualities.

That was sarcasm on my part. You were equating parental correction, with crime and punishment.

Isn’t parental correction what supposedly prevents later crime and the need for punishment according to the advocates of physical discipline? If a parent thinks it is OK to hit their child as punishment that child will invariably be hit at some point for something he did not do. This destroys the parent-child relationship.

You say in your other post that you had an abusive upbringing. If this is so, then my sympathies. It is truly awful that such things happen. However, there's a world of a difference between abuse, and a child getting a slap on the wrist for misbehaving or being disobedient.

An abused child is incapable of seeing any difference. I have run into too many thugs and fools who abuse their children in the name of Biblical discipline when they don’t realize that they are repeating their own parents’ bad behavior.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I really hope that that was not remotely directed at what I posted Robin, because if it is I can only sigh at your inability to understand basic English.

You can return, unused, your sighs to your wallet, as I wasn't referring to you

My comment was directed towards people who think it's acceptable, in general, to assault children with the intent to cause pain, and especially those individuals who do so in order to assert the authority and respect they feel they're due -- essentially, assaulting kids to preserve their own vanity.

PDN

flja wrote: »

Legal standards exist in some situations, but these standards cannot take every parent-child or teacher-student situation into account. The only safe thing we can do is eliminate the mindset whereby adults believe it is OK for them to use physical force against a child.

That's a bit like arguing that the existence of police states mean that the only safe thing is to eliminate police forces altogether.

Corporal correction should never be used in frustration or anger, and, given my experience of teachers, I feel very uncomfortable with them having the power to physically correct other people's children.

Fanny Cradock

flja wrote: »

Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Your line of thinking runs straight to Auschwitz.

Can you explain how Genesis leads to Auschwitz?

It seems quite clear that you want my words to mean something that you can get pissed off at.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you explain how Genesis leads to Auschwitz?

I think his reference to Genesis, is that Man is above animals, and as such, comparing people to them...............

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

I think his reference to Genesis, is that Man is above animals, and as such, comparing people to them...............

Nah, I don't get it. We are part of the kingdom Animalia - we are animals. If we are talking about a colloquial use of the word animal, which refers to lower animals, then I fully accept that a human life is intrinsically more valuable than that of a dog, cat or a mouse.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nah, I don't get it. We are part of the kingdom Animalia - we are animals. If we are talking about a colloquial use of the word animal, which refers to lower animals, then I fully accept that a human life is intrinsically more valuable than that of a dog, cat or a mouse.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that he wasn't saying, 'Genesis leads to Auschwitz'.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that he wasn't saying, 'Genesis leads to Auschwitz'.

Yeah, I got you. That was directed at flja.

flja

robindch wrote: »

You can return, unused, your sighs to your wallet, as I wasn't referring to you

My comment was directed towards people who think it's acceptable, in general, to assault children with the intent to cause pain, and especially those individuals who do so in order to assert the authority and respect they feel they're due -- essentially, assaulting kids to preserve their own vanity.

Don’t most (all?) parents hit their children because some action on their children’s part causes embarrassment to the parent? If a parent has earned the child’s respect, then surely the child would want to please the parent because it is only natural that a child wants to give his parent unconditional love. Forfeiture of that love and failure to earn the child’s respect means that the child has no vested interest in pleasing the parent and no amount of physical force on the parent’s part will change this equation.

flja

PDN wrote: »

That's a bit like arguing that the existence of police states mean that the only safe thing is to eliminate police forces altogether.

In a civilized society we don’t allow cops to go around beating people. So why should we allow parents to use physical force against children?

Corporal correction should never be used in frustration or anger, and, given my experience of teachers, I feel very uncomfortable with them having the power to physically correct other people's children.

But this is exactly what happens and it illustrates the injustice that is inherent in corporal punishment. With no statutory law, with nothing in writing, it is left up to each individual adult to decide when, where and how a child can be hit on an individual basis. We don't allow kings or presidents or cops to be above the law and we don't allow kings, presidents or cops to make up the law as they go along, so why should parents, teachers or babysitters be given this privilege?

flja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you explain how Genesis leads to Auschwitz?

It seems quite clear that you want my words to mean something that you can get pissed off at.

Get off your high horse and pay attention to what you are actually reading and maybe you won’t appear to be such a fool.
I didn’t say that Genesis leads to Auschwitz. I said that your line of thinking that equates human beings with animals leads to Auschwitz. If humans are animals and Darwinism is true, then some humans must be better evolved than others, and the humans that are better evolved have a natural right to oppress and kill the humans that are not.

Fanny Cradock

I'm unsure what I've done to attract your anger.

robindch

flja wrote: »

Don’t most (all?) parents hit their children because some action on their children’s part causes embarrassment to the parent?

I'd imagine that a relatively high percentage of authoritarian/conservative parents will hit their kids for political reasons like that. However, I can't imagine any liberal parents doing that, either because they don't hit kids to start with (preferring other sanctions), or because they can engineer the situation so that hitting kids is pointless.

flja wrote: »

If a parent has earned the child’s respect, then surely the child would want to please the parent because it is only natural that a child wants to give his parent unconditional love.

Looks to me like you're taking certain christian beliefs about deity-worship and trying to apply these expectations to kids. This isn't appropriate, since parents are not deities, kids are not (or shouldn't be treated as) religious believers, and an expectation of love isn't going to much to help it appear.

The following thought seems appropriate here:

A Good Proverb wrote:

If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If it doesn't, it never was. We do not possess anything in this world, least of all other people. We only imagine that we do. Our friends, our lovers, our spouses, even our children are not ours; they belong only to themselves. Possessive and controlling friendships and relationships are as harmful as neglect.

robindch

flja wrote: »

If humans are animals and Darwinism is true, then some humans must be better evolved than others, and the humans that are better evolved have a natural right to oppress and kill the humans that are not.

Have you ever considered that you may not understand biology and that your evident hatred of it stems directly from that failure to understand?