Silly sibyls of statistics

Opinions wrote:
Perhaps someone missed reading Proverbs 19:18 where it says, "Chasten
thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his
crying."

Please provide the translations from the Greek.

Notice that the quotes you provide are from Proverbs and on the subject
of the musing of a King known for his extreme cruelty, who, apparently
by his methods, raised a son so depraved and cruel himself his subject
nearly took his life and he had to run for it. Hardly a good model.

And the point was made this is the OT, not the NT.

Then, there are those inconvenient verses in Proverbs
23:13-14 that say, "Withhold not correction from the child: for [if]
thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him
with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

They are considerably more than inconvenient. They represent a time when
humankind had taken up cruel and harsh means of dealing with each other.

Would you have adulterers stoned today because the OT said it must be?

Of course, those verses were probably added by some spiteful monk.
After all, in the days when cities were sacked and genocide was the
name of the game in warfare, beating a willful kid with a stick would
be unthinkable! Surely, this would never happen in a day when
rebellious offspring could be stoned to death according to Deuteronomy
21:18-21. Never. Why, perish the thought!

So, then you either must accept it all, and we take up stoning our
children, or give it all up, unless you want to immorally just pick and
choose, lil 'o'.

Did the ancient Hebrews invent this stuff? Probably not. As a
practical people, they incorporated what proved useful to them. The
same is true of their dietary laws, style of warfare, as well as child
discipline. Even some Hebrew tales of wonderment have parallels in
other cultures.

Which does nothing to refute the information Toto posted on how
misguided people are to pick and choose from the Old Testament to
justify beating children.

You are running circles in your frantic attempt to reclaim a past that
we have rejected. And so have most Christians. They do not follow the
old laws, but the new "Good News," so please provide for us something
that tells parents to whip their children that comes from the latter
source.

Or do you secretly long for a return to stoning and other murderous acts
upon children?

Possibly you'd prefer the sacrifice of Abraham as a solution to
"children out of control."

Or can you remember the mercy of God on that occasion?

0:-


toto wrote:
On 19 Apr 2006 14:37:12 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The "intuition" of parents is what no-spanks fear most. That is why
parents must be cowered with the god of "science" and goaded with
thuggery of useless bureaucracy.
Actually science asks parents to empirically test these methods all
by themselves instead being cowed by the God of the Bible. And,
of course, Jesus did not espouse spanking either so living by Jesus's
beliefs would not involve using such methods.

Christian parents are often confused about the issue of corporal
punishment, believing that they must spank their child in order to
be godly parents; They take literally the phrase, "Spare the rod and
spoil the child." Some religious teachers reinforce this notion by
quoting scriptures out of context. Among the verses they cite:
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline
will drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15); "He who spares the rod,
hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him"
(Proverbs 13:24); and "Do not withhold discipline from a child; punish
him with the rod, and save his soul from death" (Proverbs 29:15).

At first reading, these passages might seem to support: spanking. But
this is not the only way to interpret them. The term rod is used
throughout the Bible in connection with the shepherd's staff: "Your
rod and your staff, they comfort me" (Psalms 23:4). The shepherd's
staff is, in fact, used to guide wandering sheep along the right path,
not to hit sheep who stray. So a compassionate reader could interpret
the Bible as saying that parents must lead and guide their children
but not harm them. This teaching is developed beautifully in the book
A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, by Philip Keller.

Finally, note that references to the "rod" are found primarily in the
Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christ preaches compassion, love,
and understanding, as does Paul. We would hope that all parents,
hearing teachers warn about sparing the rod will remember Paul's words
in 1 Corinthians: "Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and the
spirit of gentleness?"

-- William Sears


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Opinions wrote:
Christianity is pure gold in the hands of a manipulator. It is highly
malleable and can be molded to fit almost any agenda. Odd thing is
that the same can be said of science.

The former, as all religions, cannot be held accountable by its
practitioners by the use of facts. It is "Faith" based.

Science, on the other hand, is subject to attack with facts.

There is considerable difference.

0:-



Doan wrote:
There are thousands of christian sects, each with their own
"interpretation" of the Bible. But to say that the Bible
doesn't condone spanking takes more than just a leap of
faith! If you want to hold Jesus up as a role model, you
have to look at his relationship to his heavenly father and
then ask yourself why must Jesus died on the cross!

Doan

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 14:37:12 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The "intuition" of parents is what no-spanks fear most. That is why
parents must be cowered with the god of "science" and goaded with
thuggery of useless bureaucracy.
Actually science asks parents to empirically test these methods all
by themselves instead being cowed by the God of the Bible. And,
of course, Jesus did not espouse spanking either so living by Jesus's
beliefs would not involve using such methods.

Christian parents are often confused about the issue of corporal
punishment, believing that they must spank their child in order to
be godly parents; They take literally the phrase, "Spare the rod and
spoil the child." Some religious teachers reinforce this notion by
quoting scriptures out of context. Among the verses they cite:
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline
will drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15); "He who spares the rod,
hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him"
(Proverbs 13:24); and "Do not withhold discipline from a child; punish
him with the rod, and save his soul from death" (Proverbs 29:15).

At first reading, these passages might seem to support: spanking. But
this is not the only way to interpret them. The term rod is used
throughout the Bible in connection with the shepherd's staff: "Your
rod and your staff, they comfort me" (Psalms 23:4). The shepherd's
staff is, in fact, used to guide wandering sheep along the right path,
not to hit sheep who stray. So a compassionate reader could interpret
the Bible as saying that parents must lead and guide their children
but not harm them. This teaching is developed beautifully in the book
A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, by Philip Keller.

Finally, note that references to the "rod" are found primarily in the
Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christ preaches compassion, love,
and understanding, as does Paul. We would hope that all parents,
hearing teachers warn about sparing the rod will remember Paul's words
in 1 Corinthians: "Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and the
spirit of gentleness?"

-- William Sears


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
There are thousands of christian sects, each with their own
"interpretation" of the Bible.

And that refutes the information below in what way?

Just one interpretation out of thousands!

But to say that the Bible
doesn't condone spanking takes more than just a leap of
faith!

Yes, and it's called reason and critical thinking, rather than a "leap
of faith."

Which the anti-spanking zealotS lacked!

I have looked into both Greek and Aramaic rendering of biblical texts.

Hahaha! You are pulling another "abreaction"! Stop making a fool of
yourself!

The word for Rod and the Scepter of a king is the same, Shebet. It is
not a leap to presume, given the actual words in the languages of the
times, that the references were made to the authority of the King and
the protection of the shepherd's staff.

If you want to hold Jesus up as a role model, you
have to look at his relationship to his heavenly father and
then ask yourself why must Jesus died on the cross!

And that has what to do with spanking children?

The ultimate punishment is death! It just doesn't fit with the
anti-spanking message. ;-)

Was His crucifixion to discipline him, as spanking is used to
"discipline" children?

His life is the model. His death doesn't require that we kill our
children. Where did he say to beat or spank children to discipline them?

Next you going to tell me that, like Einstein, Jesus was "never-spanked"
by his parents?

You are becoming as obtuse and strange as lil 'o'.

Only to stupid asshole like you! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)
Would you be claiming then, Doan, that social science isn't science?

Please provide something other than someone's opinion above that so much
better fits the description of spankers for thousands of years.

You don't get long term better behavior from children by spanking them.

Neither do you long term better behavior from non-spanking alternatives.
Parenting is much more spank/non-spank!
Sure you do, and no one claimed your latter statement.

You do by other strategies.

Has not been proven.
I'm happy with my experience and that of a few thousand parents I have
observed pretty closely over the years.

And so are other peoples with their own observation of billions of parents
over thousands of years!

The difference is that mine are backed by research and facts. Yours, on
faith alone. All you get with spanking is immediate
compliance..sometimes..and a high risk of bad outcomes over the long term.

I'm waiting for someone to show me all those unspanked convicts and
otherwise violent people you folks like to claim will be the result of
not spanking.

Any takers?

The proof is out there. All you have to do is read.

Do you know how to read? Try Straus & Mouradian (1998)!
I know how to read. Are they addressing the question of better outcomes
with less spanking?

No. They do not! Did they found better outcomes of the non-cp
alternatives?

They don't have to be "better," only as good as and NOT POTENTIALLY
HARMFUL.

And you still refuse to acknowledge what you have been told
repeatedly...the alternative to CP were themselves punishment.

Punishment is a poor teacher.

When are you going to stop repeating this, WITHOUT ANSWERING THE
CHALLENGE TO YOU ABOUT THE PUNISHING NON CP methods?

Why do you keep ignoring that.

Why do you keep ignoring that?

I don't, I answered it, and you ignore my answer in rebuttal against
your claim.

AND YOU DO NOT REPLY with anything intelligent.


If less is better, then none is best.

Strange logic!!! You don't eat? You don't take any medicine? Are you
this STUPID???

We were not discussing medicine and food, where we?

Your metaphors are misplaced, to say the least. They are in fact, lying.

We were discussing spanking. I less is better, then none is best.

Prove me wrong.

Show me some plausible credible source that has tracked non-spanked
children and shown that they have as much or more mental illness,
suicides and attempts, crime, violence, or social negatives.

Prison records, mental health treatment records, nothing has shown any
such thing and you know it.

When you find it, post it and I'll join the spanking compulsives.

And even if all you find is something that says they are similar in
outcomes, non-spanking methods have none of the risks of spanking.

Not true! Straus & Mouradian (1998) found that the non-cp alternavies
predicted antisocial problems 10 times more strongly than did
non-impulsive physical punishment, and they predicted child
impulsivity 3 times more strongly.
Please post the actual statements here for examination by all.

Already have, check the archives!

No, you keep listing this and refusing to answer my rebuttals. So YOU
provide the source, Doan, instead of lying by misleading.

You pretend you won the argument, when you did not, and have not.

You simply RAN away, like a whipped dog.

They listed punishments as the "non-cp" alternatives. We knew then, and
certainly more so now many years later, that "punishment" whether CP or
non-cp are not effective and have serious negative side effects.

Please post the actual statement. Are you going to outlaw all
punishments?

Yes, if I could. There are other ways to teach the same desired outcomes
without punishing.

We've had this same conversation a lot of times, Doan and you still
can't seem to remember it, or don't want to, and want to keep any new
readers in the dark that you were wiped out on this issue long ago,
repeatedly.

And I have already refuted your arguments many times over.

You have run like a whipped dog screaming lies and bull**** all over the
landscape. Stop lying.

I've also
asked you if you think punishments are so bad, are you going to go
down to your local juvenile halls and demanded that it be abolished!

No, because I know they won't listen to me. Where I HAVE been listened
to though, I have been proven correct repeatedly.

There are other ways of teaching than by punishing.

Like a hundred thousand or so children injured each year by parents that
were spanking and did not have that information they all claim they do
have, and you claim they do as well....where the line is.

If this is true then eliminating spanking would have eliminated
child-abuses long time ago.
How could that be? We have not eliminated spanking yet.

Just look at Sweden as an example.

Yes, and if it had no immigrant population you would see a far more
peaceful place. Much of the immigrant population come from countries
that DO still use spanking and worse on their children.

Go read what's going on in Sweden.

But I do agree. Except for some aberrations of a few human beings, we
could virtually eliminate child abuse by putting an end to spanking.

Have you checked Sweden? ;-)

Have YOU? Are you willing to look at variables, like a changing
population? Probably not.





Reality has proven that your premises is
false!
Surely you aren't claiming that spanking has been eliminated and that
all parents that don't spank also don't use other tortures that are mental?

Exactly!
You have just proven my point and refuted your own argument
that and end to spanking means an end to child abuse.

When did I claim that there would be "an end" to child abuse? Humans
aren't that controllable.

One thing at a time. Very rarely does mental abuse rise to the level of
actual harm that spanking does when spanking escalates to killing and
injuring. You know I posted those figures recently, and they are shocking.

You know of any deaths by verbal abuse? Please list them. You know of
any physical injuries by verbal abuse? Please list them.

Laws against robbing banks don't stop people from cheating on their
taxes, but both are about money. We still have those laws on bank
robbing even if people breaks such laws and others.

I'm betting that within a year, likely less, you will come up with this
SAME argument, though I just shot you down. 0:-

Sick people are sick people, Doan. You should know, being a prime example.

Hihihi! You are sick!

Nope. I do not advocate self delusions about what spanking is.

If it WAS against the law, I'm sure you would find other ways to torture
your child.

I am not an admitted child abuser, YOU are!

You are an admitted proponent of practices that result in child abuse.

Describe how I abused a child, Doan. Go ahead, you slimy little 'tard.

It will take some generations to eliminate spanking in any case. So
there is no way, unless you would life a couple of lifetimes, to see a
total "elimination" of child abuse.

In other words, it will never happen.

Could be. Shall we repeal laws against rape, robbery, assault because it
still happens?

Your logic is Cargo Cult.

You are a member of the anti-spanking zealotS, not I. ;-)

Which clearly shows your Cargo Cult mentality, repeatedly.

AF

0:-




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
There are thousands of christian sects, each with their own
"interpretation" of the Bible.
And that refutes the information below in what way?

Just one interpretation out of thousands!

Yes, I'd say that pretty much sums up the spanking compulsive
contingent, now doesn't it?

Or do you insist that only the Biblical interpretation that supports
spanking is valid?

It too is "just one interpretation out of thousands."

Though I wouldn't use "thousands" myself, unless you mean individual
human beings. That, of course, kind of weakens the impact of your
argument, as we know that everyone has an opinion.

But to say that the Bible
doesn't condone spanking takes more than just a leap of
faith!
Yes, and it's called reason and critical thinking, rather than a "leap
of faith."

Which the anti-spanking zealotS lacked!

Why is faith a better answer than reason and critical thinking, as in
science?

I have looked into both Greek and Aramaic rendering of biblical texts.

Hahaha! You are pulling another "abreaction"! Stop making a fool of
yourself!

Nope. Abreaction was just as I said it was.

And it's you making a fool of yourself by rushing to Ad Hominem to avoid
dealing with the claim I am making.

The word for Rod and the Scepter of a king is the same, Shebet. It is
not a leap to presume, given the actual words in the languages of the
times, that the references were made to the authority of the King and
the protection of the shepherd's staff.

See. You did NOT wait and respond to my point, but interrupted to
dodge...like a running dog.

If you want to hold Jesus up as a role model, you
have to look at his relationship to his heavenly father and
then ask yourself why must Jesus died on the cross!
And that has what to do with spanking children?

The ultimate punishment is death!

Death is rarely a punishment. Are you claiming Jesus was being punished?

It just doesn't fit with the
anti-spanking message. ;-)

I would say that is about as honest as you have ever been in this ng.

You finally figured it out.

Punishment is, generally speaking, not the focus of those that chose to
parent without corporal punishment.

We look for, and encourage and support others looking for teaching by
support, instruction, information sharing, and patience.

We do that rather than killing our children, as so many spankers seem to
have managed to escalate to as I posted yesterday.

Was His crucifixion to discipline him, as spanking is used to
"discipline" children?

His life is the model. His death doesn't require that we kill our
children. Where did he say to beat or spank children to discipline them?

Next you going to tell me that, like Einstein, Jesus was "never-spanked"
by his parents?

You have not answered my questions. Why is that?

The question, by the way, of whether Jesus was spanked or not has gone
unanswered, but speculated about rather a lot.

Theologians differ on it. Some would say that the traditions of the
times would prevail and he'd be spanked at least for disappearing for so
long to teach in the temple as a child.

On the other hand, Mary had been told by an angel she would bear the son
of God, God himself, manifest as a human man.

Would YOU spanking Him?


You are becoming as obtuse and strange as lil 'o'.

Only to stupid asshole like you! ;-)

No, I'd say anyone that observes you that has any brains at all would
get that you are running scared, little dog.

If you are a Christian I'd be interested how you reconcile the Spanking
of Him with Him being God.

Care to have a go at it, and The Question too, while you are at it?

Doan

sigh which challenges and question will you dodge today, doggy?

0:-






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On 20 Apr 2006 11:54:24 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

I also read between the lines.

These days, an argument based on science constitutes an appeal to
authority. Observations overtime also gave the human race "common
sense" solutions. Nothing new in that approach

Most common sense (as sense) is an optimistic, even dangerous,
fiction.

Some recent work in cognitive science has taken common sense -
in the form of naive physics, folk psychology or real-world models
for natural language processing - as a serious object of scientific
inquiry. If one has no idea what an x-ray tube is and what it does,
your common sense might tell you that its function is entirely
different from what the reality is. Perception does not reveal the
whole truth about colors and what it does reveal is limited by
the characteristics of human perceptual systems. Human perception
delivers only partial information about reality and common sense
tends to make judgements based on the partial information. Each
culture (and ours is no exception) has its own culture specific
beliefs about external reality. Note that common sense often
does eventually incorporate scientific observations and theories.
Common sense has absorbed the notion of inertia. However, its
mathematical generalization, the law of conservation of momentum
has made its way into the common sense of only a small fraction
of people--even among the people who have taken courses in
physics because the information is too mathematical.

Quantum mechanics and relativity shattered our common-sense notions
about how the world works. The theories ask us to believe that an
electron can exist in more than one place at the same time, and that
space and time — the I-beams of reality — are not rigid but rubbery.
Impossible! And yet these sense-defying propositions have withstood
a century’s worth of painstaking experimental tests.

Common sense is "the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18,"
as Einstein once said.

While it is true that ordinary, experience-based intelligence is
necessary to get human beings through a normal day, this is no
guide to the larger questions we face.

That doesn't prevent science from being used by politicians who
don't understand it or who use it to forward their own agenda, but
critical thinking about the issues is important for all of us.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

The Einstein quote on common sense is attributed. He may or may not
have said it. I like Halsman's photo of Einstein. It shows a man who
realizes his contribution to science will be most remembered for
unleashing an instantaneous holocaust of total warfare on men, women,
and children. His eyes reveal a pacifist in a hell of his own making.
The image explains his comment about World War IV with men like LeMay
around.

Much of the supposed common sense about electrons is based on a
proliferation of Bohr's model that made chemistry easier to understand
on an elementary level. Apart from exposure to formal education, it
did not exit for most people. That may be one of the reasons why
Einstein had such a low opinion of the education process in its
destruction of the creative process and replacing it with supposed
knowledge of the day. Then, that really is mass education's real
purpose: To turn out minions.

I can see no reason to doubt Feynman's assessment "that nobody
understands quantum mechanics." It's the perfect example of an
open-ended theoretical science. It also has paradoxes and experimental
loopholes. Quantum logic is much like the Peace of God.

My favorite discovery in theoretical physics is cold fusion. That
really worked well. What to buy stock in a cold fusion company? I
understand it truly is a penny stock.

Innumeracy is the unpardonable sin in a technical world. There have
always been those individuals, before the days of scientific
calculators, who could show up for physics class and never bring a
slide rule. My wife has the ability to track chemical valences in her
head. Yet, like art and music, mathematics can be the domain of idiot
savants.

"Critical thinking" is a buzz phrase used to describe a style of
thinking at least as old as Socrates but which became popular among
esoterics and eccentrics 100 years ago. More recently, it has made its
way into public education via Dewey's influence. Like the scientific
method, its role is to mold a uniform pattern of thinking among
malleable minds. Generally, self-described critical thinkers seem to
share Lord Byron's less than charitable assessment of the average human
being. It stands in sharp contrast to Darwell's charcter's observation
in the closing scenes in the film Grapes of Wrath. (The novel ends
quite differently.)

toto wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006 11:54:24 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

I also read between the lines.

These days, an argument based on science constitutes an appeal to
authority. Observations overtime also gave the human race "common
sense" solutions. Nothing new in that approach

Most common sense (as sense) is an optimistic, even dangerous,
fiction.

Some recent work in cognitive science has taken common sense -
in the form of naive physics, folk psychology or real-world models
for natural language processing - as a serious object of scientific
inquiry. If one has no idea what an x-ray tube is and what it does,
your common sense might tell you that its function is entirely
different from what the reality is. Perception does not reveal the
whole truth about colors and what it does reveal is limited by
the characteristics of human perceptual systems. Human perception
delivers only partial information about reality and common sense
tends to make judgements based on the partial information. Each
culture (and ours is no exception) has its own culture specific
beliefs about external reality. Note that common sense often
does eventually incorporate scientific observations and theories.
Common sense has absorbed the notion of inertia. However, its
mathematical generalization, the law of conservation of momentum
has made its way into the common sense of only a small fraction
of people--even among the people who have taken courses in
physics because the information is too mathematical.

Quantum mechanics and relativity shattered our common-sense notions
about how the world works. The theories ask us to believe that an
electron can exist in more than one place at the same time, and that
space and time - the I-beams of reality - are not rigid but rubbery.
Impossible! And yet these sense-defying propositions have withstood
a century's worth of painstaking experimental tests.

Common sense is "the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18,"
as Einstein once said.

While it is true that ordinary, experience-based intelligence is
necessary to get human beings through a normal day, this is no
guide to the larger questions we face.

That doesn't prevent science from being used by politicians who
don't understand it or who use it to forward their own agenda, but
critical thinking about the issues is important for all of us.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Opinions wrote:

Perhaps someone missed reading Proverbs 19:18 where it says, "Chasten
thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his
crying." Then, there are those inconvenient verses in Proverbs
23:13-14 that say, "Withhold not correction from the child: for [if]
thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him
with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

This is one of the problems with literal interpretation of the Old
Testament. Do you advocate stoning to death by the city elders of a
child who eats or drinks too much, and hasn't changed his/her ways after
"chastisement?" Deuteronomy does.

Do you advocate death for adultry? The Old Testament does. If you are
reading this and would like to know the exact reference, let me know.
Do you advocate slavery? The OT does. If you want the exact reference,
let me know. There are many more examples that I can provide. If you
want to pull out passages that advocate hitting of children and ignore
the remainder of the OT, you are on a slippery slope to nowhere.

Of course, those verses were probably added by some spiteful monk.

These verses were written before the "age of grace" in the New
Testament. If you want to embrace these verses as truth, then you will
need to literaly embrace all of the OT as truth applied today, and
embrace the OT literally, every word.

After all, in the days when cities were sacked and genocide was the
name of the game in warfare, beating a willful kid with a stick would
be unthinkable! Surely, this would never happen in a day when
rebellious offspring could be stoned to death according to Deuteronomy
21:18-21. Never. Why, perish the thought!

My point exactly. If you use Proverbs to justify hitting children in
the name of discipline, you must also advocate stoning in this context.

Did the ancient Hebrews invent this stuff? Probably not. As a
practical people, they incorporated what proved useful to them. The
same is true of their dietary laws, style of warfare, as well as child
discipline. Even some Hebrew tales of wonderment have parallels in
other cultures.

Your understanding of the Bible seems to bend to fit your point.



toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 14:37:12 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:


The "intuition" of parents is what no-spanks fear most. That is why
parents must be cowered with the god of "science" and goaded with
thuggery of useless bureaucracy.

Actually science asks parents to empirically test these methods all
by themselves instead being cowed by the God of the Bible. And,
of course, Jesus did not espouse spanking either so living by Jesus's
beliefs would not involve using such methods.

Christian parents are often confused about the issue of corporal
punishment, believing that they must spank their child in order to
be godly parents; They take literally the phrase, "Spare the rod and
spoil the child." Some religious teachers reinforce this notion by
quoting scriptures out of context. Among the verses they cite:
"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline
will drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15); "He who spares the rod,
hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him"
(Proverbs 13:24); and "Do not withhold discipline from a child; punish
him with the rod, and save his soul from death" (Proverbs 29:15).

At first reading, these passages might seem to support: spanking. But
this is not the only way to interpret them. The term rod is used
throughout the Bible in connection with the shepherd's staff: "Your
rod and your staff, they comfort me" (Psalms 23:4). The shepherd's
staff is, in fact, used to guide wandering sheep along the right path,
not to hit sheep who stray. So a compassionate reader could interpret
the Bible as saying that parents must lead and guide their children
but not harm them. This teaching is developed beautifully in the book
A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, by Philip Keller.

Finally, note that references to the "rod" are found primarily in the
Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christ preaches compassion, love,
and understanding, as does Paul. We would hope that all parents,
hearing teachers warn about sparing the rod will remember Paul's words
in 1 Corinthians: "Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and the
spirit of gentleness?"

-- William Sears


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits