| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

Ray Drouillard wrote:


Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
adults. One must only look around to see examples.

Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do not
need is physical assault in the name of discipline.

Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our
maker gave to us:

Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is
careful to discipline him.

Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
discipline drives it far from him.

And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do you
prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way,
nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and hurting a
little child with rods or anything else.


Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with
the rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
discipline.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto
himself causes shame to his mother.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if you use
Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend stoning
those children to death who remain rebellious.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he
will not depart from it.

And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a
child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to death.
Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you advocate
everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for
rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins when
they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to
stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that, isn't
it.

LaVonne

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
Ray Drouillard wrote:


Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
adults. One must only look around to see examples.

Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do
not
need is physical assault in the name of discipline.

Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that
our
maker gave to us:

Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves
him is
careful to discipline him.

Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
discipline drives it far from him.

And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do
you
prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way,
nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and
hurting a
little child with rods or anything else.


Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him
with
the rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
discipline.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto
himself causes shame to his mother.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if
you use
Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend
stoning
those children to death who remain rebellious.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is
old he
will not depart from it.

And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a
child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to
death.
Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you
advocate
everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for
rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins
when
they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to
stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that,
isn't
it.

LaVonne


Again, the term "justify" is used.

Do you have to justify eating? Do you have to justify sleeping? You
justify bad things, not good things. Discipline is a good thing.

Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using
that to discredit the Old Testament.

The answer to that can be quite complex, but I'll make it simple and
leave out a whole lot of details.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the
law.

There is a whole lot more to it, of course. The Law was for the Jews,
not the Gentiles. Sacrifice no longer needs to be practiced because
Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. In the NT, God mad all food clean.
The list goes on.

So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if
it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.

Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Now, moving on to the second part of my project at disassembling the
above argument:

Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free
to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not
pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
wise advice in Proverbs still stands.



Ray Drouillard

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:52:04 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...

[...]

----- Original Message -----
From: jordan riak
To:
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:30 PM
Subject: Bill O'Reilly, well-spanked

....................

"I have some first-hand evidence to support my theory. I routinely
poll each new class of students to find out what percentage were
raised without corporal punishment. I lecture a new group of 20 to
30
adults every three weeks, and have been doing so over the course of
the past four years. In the process of looking for an unspanked
student, I think I know how Diogenes felt holding up his lantern in
the market place at midday in search of an honest man. My polling
results are consistently at, or very near, 0%. If their childhoods
were deficient in any way, it certainly wasn't due to the lack of
spanking.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

My students are inmates in the Pre-Release Program at California
State
Prison Folsom."


Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were spanked
as
children.

Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every one
of
the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children. Maybe
bread is the villain.

Quite possible, if eating bread were painful.

As far as I know bread has not been implicated in reactive
psychological disorders. Spanking has been. What it's implication
amounts to is the question, not wither or not it is implicated.

Nice try Ray. You are still about two hairs short of a toupee.


My point is that your attempted use of scanty statistical data is
totally invalid. I expanded upon it in another part of the thread.



Ray

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:20:22 -0500, "Dalene Barnes"
wrote:

Kane wrote:

Excellent. Nice going. Of course a humourous post of correlation
hardly equates with the serious subject of using pain for teaching.

(and a bunch of other stuff)


The human body itself is designed to teach by pain...as in "Doc, it
hurts
when I do this...."

That is correct. However if one pays attention to their body and
learns its signals one can intervene before pain becomes extreme.

We are made aware of many things in our body by pain -
tooth hurts, it needs attention; head hurts, it needs rest; fire
hurts,
don't touch it; eyes hurt, I may need glasses; falling off a cliff
hurts,
stay away from the edge.

That is correct. That is the body itself delivering messages directly
related to the actions of that body. Very smart of you to notice.

We are taught, through nature and our own body,
through pain.

That is correct. Parents have a very special role in all this.

We are also taught other ways, so those are valid also. If
you correlate pain in the body with spanking, it *should* only take
one
(maybe two for some) experiences to learn where the pain comes, and
where
the reward comes.

That is correct. The parent has a very special role to play in all
this.

But learning by pain CAN BE and IS a very natural
process.

Excellent. Gold star for you. Two maybe. The parent has a very special
role to play in all this.

I would also contend that teaching by corporal punishment is very
natural,
because it is a behavior that can be seen in many animals. Our dog,
when
she has puppies, weans her pups by nipping at them when they try to
nurse.

That is correct. If you nursed your children when you were ready to
wean them did you nip at them.

I'll bet not. And therein lies the fallacy of your metaphore. We are
not dogs and puppies. A bitch cannot teach her puppies by any other
means. A human has quite a repertoire a dog does not.

And you have used just one example. I have, and I've bred and trained
dogs for income, seen most bitches that are through nursing simply get
up and walk away. She can easily tire the puppies out, and with my
help can isolate herself from them. Many simply jumped up on their
shelters and sat there so the pups couldn't nurse.

That was very quick and easy to. The pups took to a dish quite easily,
and were ready for more solid food at an appropriate time.

They learn very quickly. They also learn that just approaching mom
to
cuddle has rewards.

Actually weaning time often marks the mother taking off a lot more.
And the pups have to turn to other pursuits much more often to get
their cuddling.

I've seen videos (but never in person) of other animals
that teach their offspring with a swat. This leads to survival of
the
fittest;

You are a believer in evolution then? But you are wrong. Sometimes
animals disciplining their young do kill them. Male dogs, and wolves,
quite gentle with pups, when to harrased by them have been known to
snap and break their little necks.

Farley Mowat documented it in the Canadian wilds. Great book. Read it.

I'm sure you don't intend your metaphore to attach to anything that
broad an would prefer I confined it to just your argument. Sorry.
Cannot do that.

it doesn't mar the babes for life, it teaches them to live.

How do you know, assuming we are still talking about animals, what it
does in terms of maring.

I had a dog, his name was Po. His mother was so tiny and he so big
that I had to help her deliver him. He was a handsome devil, kind of a
stouter model pointer, broad chest, strong as an ox. Black and white.

I fed him, as she couldn't. In fact I had to teach him to bark, as he
never had litter mates and a mother to grow up with (by the way,
barking is not taught by pain, but by example...ring any bells as a
metaphore for you?)

I was, in effect, his mother in all ways but nursing.

I was late teaching him to bark as for some time I didn't realize why
he whined instead of barking. When I taught him forever after when
people would hear him bark they'd say his back sounded like my voice.
r r r r

He tured out to be an exceptional dog in many ways. Saved my daugher
from a pack of abandoned stray dogs that were running the
neighborhood. Later he and I fought of a pack of them, probably 40 or
more, that were going for my horses.

And finally, and I'm sure you'll discount everything I say when I tell
you this...he always tried to mimic my voice and words and one day
said to me as clear as day, "that's okay."

But you know the human brain, it will do everything it can to make new
information match old patterns...so I probably morphed it a bit. It
was probably just him clearing his throat.

Now while it's true that we are definitely a step above animals
(although
some may argue that we are not....)

That would be a silly argument given just simple observation. We are
many steps above dogs. Our nearest relatives cannot design or make a
computer chip, for instance. I'd say that qualifies as something of a
giant step.

I don't think you can reasonably argue
that learning through pain is an invalid method of learning; it
appears to
be natural.

How IS it that people fail to read and then reply to something that
that poster never said? Please go back and read...if you will....and
tell me where you find me saying pain is an invalid method of
learning.

I claim it is inferior, for humans...and my dog....you'd be amazed at
the things he learned to do by my patience.

BUT it MUST be done correctly.

Ah finally someone that can debate. I invite you to present the
correct methods and circumstances for the use of pain as a teacher
when delivered by a parent.

I already have made clear I accept and know how to use natural
consequences deriving from the environment and the child's own body.

To corrupt that natural method would most
definitely lead to problems.

I also invite you to define what particular teaching that is non-pain
based, and that must include mental as well as physical pain, that is
corrupted or corrupting the use of pain as a teacher administered by a
parent.

Let me break that long convuluted sentence down. Please tell me what
non pain based teachings are corrupting.

Thank you for you thoughtful,intelligent, and couragious contribution.

Some here have demonstrated their weasely cowardice in the first
couple of posts. Disgusting.


Dalene


Respectfully, Kane

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:14 -0400, "S.J. King"
wrote:

In ,
Ray Drouillard typed:
"Kane" wrote in message
om...

[...]

----- Original Message -----
From: jordan riak
To:
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:30 PM
Subject: Bill O'Reilly, well-spanked

....................

"I have some first-hand evidence to support my theory. I routinely
poll each new class of students to find out what percentage were
raised without corporal punishment. I lecture a new group of 20 to
30
adults every three weeks, and have been doing so over the course
of
the past four years. In the process of looking for an unspanked
student, I think I know how Diogenes felt holding up his lantern
in
the market place at midday in search of an honest man. My polling
results are consistently at, or very near, 0%. If their childhoods
were deficient in any way, it certainly wasn't due to the lack of
spanking.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

My students are inmates in the Pre-Release Program at California
State Prison Folsom."


Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were spanked
as
children.

Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every one
of
the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children.
Maybe
bread is the villain.

I'd bet it's white bread, too...

~Lee

I just love smart asses. They so quickly eliminate themselves from the
debate.

Thanks Lee.

Feel free to not be a smart ass anytime you are so moved.

And please see my reply in another post that shoots that silly
argument right out of its bread wrapper.

Kane






Ray Drouillard

Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
discipline.

Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using
that to discredit the Old Testament.

What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like or
agree with.

So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if
it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.

City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government buildings.
City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city government
buildings.

Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Attempting to refute as you did is what is truly silly.

Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free
to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not
pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
wise advice in Proverbs still stands.

So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament? I see nothing in His
words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting strategy.
In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into the
depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child. And when his disciplines
want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he stops
them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."

I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do, and a
lot more respect for little children.

LaVonne



Ray Drouillard

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:36:55 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts

wrote:


On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Interesting. All of the prisoners that
he interviewed were spanked as children.

Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions.
I'll bet that every one of the prisoners
that he interviewed also ate bread as
children. Maybe bread is the villain.

As far as my research has taken me I've never once run across
any
study to implicate bread as a factor, causal or correlational,
in
criminal behavior.

If you know of one, pop it up here.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/bread.html


Excellent. Nice going. Of course a humourous post of correlation
hardly equates with the serious subject of using pain for teaching.

You have a point...only one of course.


The point, which I would have expected most people to get,

Why? Most people aren't reading this thread. Most are bored to tears
by now with your one note charlie responses.

is that
proving that 100% of the inmates were spanked means absolutely
nothing.

Sorry. It means that each of those prisoners, and class after class
every three weeks (did you miss that paret) has the same demographic
on spanking. Most at 100%, the remainder very close.

It is statistically worthless information.

How so?

If you use a big enough sample, and prove that the fraction of
inmates
who were spanked is much greater than the fraction of the general
public
who were spanked, you might have something to stand on.

Okay, there is such information available. A number of times it's been
posted in alt.parenting.spanking that surveys of college students were
asked if they had been spanked. I believe the figure given was 90% or
better.

That should give you a starting place to shoot me down. Successful
people being spanked...oh my.

As it is, the statement is either stupid or dishonest.

I believed you have used that about three times now. It leads one to
the conclusion that you are stupid or dishonest.

You forget the premise you that you and those like you put forward so
often, and was mentioned in this very thread at least
once.....unspanked children are not properly disciplined and are
menaces to society.

You leave the most interesting things out of your replies,
Ray...dishonestly and stupidly.

The question for you is this: Why are there essentialy NO unspanked
children in prisons.

If there are please show us a study that even suggests that.

Years ago I read one of the shortest studies I'd ever seen on this
prisoner - spanking issue. I think it was out of University of Chicago
Graduate School of Social Work. The researcher's name was Fischer.

It was one paragraph. I'll have to paraphrase, "After months of
surveying the prison population of three (maybe more) prisons and
finding NO inmates that hand not been spanked I came to the conclusion
I could not do a meaningfull study...the legal system had done it for
me."

You just assumed that Riak, and I, since I cited him, was trying to
prove that all prisoners are spanked children grown up. Not very
insightful of you...but I left it, free of comment, up to the reader
to draw their own conclusions and I had a hunch I'd get even dumber
responses than yours. Looks like you are alone with yours now.

Now one else has responded quite as ... mmmmm.... shall we say,
mindlessly.

Can we assume you are entertaining the thought that the Unspanked are
so Eee-vile that their criminal cleverness is so enhanced from lack of
spanking to the point they just aren't being caught?

I mean, you might as well try that tack, given you failed on the first
test of the prison story.

Or maybe you have something even more clever to offer.


Ray


It's a business doing pleasure with yah, Ray. Really.

Kane

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:40:36 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:52:04 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...

[...]

----- Original Message -----
From: jordan riak
To:
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:30 PM
Subject: Bill O'Reilly, well-spanked

....................

"I have some first-hand evidence to support my theory. I
routinely
poll each new class of students to find out what percentage were
raised without corporal punishment. I lecture a new group of 20
to
30
adults every three weeks, and have been doing so over the course
of
the past four years. In the process of looking for an unspanked
student, I think I know how Diogenes felt holding up his lantern
in
the market place at midday in search of an honest man. My
polling
results are consistently at, or very near, 0%. If their
childhoods
were deficient in any way, it certainly wasn't due to the lack
of
spanking.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

My students are inmates in the Pre-Release Program at California
State
Prison Folsom."


Interesting. All of the prisoners that he interviewed were
spanked
as
children.

Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions. I'll bet that every
one
of
the prisoners that he interviewed also ate bread as children.
Maybe
bread is the villain.

Quite possible, if eating bread were painful.

As far as I know bread has not been implicated in reactive
psychological disorders. Spanking has been. What it's implication
amounts to is the question, not wither or not it is implicated.

Nice try Ray. You are still about two hairs short of a toupee.


My point is that your attempted use of scanty statistical data is
totally invalid. I expanded upon it in another part of the thread.

Yes and I shot that down too.

You assumed the wrong claim and hence answered YOUR invented question,
not mine.

What makes you think I was, by citing Riak, trying to claim that
prisoners are all spanked?

There is yet another more important question being presented in Riak's
statement. You missed it of course.

If you wish to debate this you really have to think things through a
bit. You go off too quickly. There are therapies for that. Your wife
will appreciate it if you get help.

The first time another poster, a women I think, replied to me, though
I do not think her arguments were strong, she showed a lot of thought,
considerably more courage...it took you a great many posts to stop
playing the avoidance game of "itsatroll, itsatroll, run for the
hills."

And she had, despite the limits exhibited, nice clean claims to make.
No sliding off and pretending to answer by changing my wording...well
not as much as you.

Ray

Sleep well.

Kane

(Kane) wrote

YOU are the one being rude, through the device of ad hominem.

IMPOSTER!!!! Anyone who accuses people of ad homs, but consistently
misspells "metaphor" is NOT ME!!!!

PLONK TO THE HAND!

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:29:21 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:


"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
Ray Drouillard wrote:


Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
adults. One must only look around to see examples.

Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they
do
not
need is physical assault in the name of discipline.

Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual"
that
our
maker gave to us:

Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves
him is
careful to discipline him.

Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
discipline drives it far from him.

And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do
you
prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the
way,
nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and
hurting a
little child with rods or anything else.


Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish
him
with
the rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form
of
discipline.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left
tto
himself causes shame to his mother.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if
you use
Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend
stoning
those children to death who remain rebellious.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is
old he
will not depart from it.

And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and
hurting a
child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to
death.
Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you
advocate
everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment
for
rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins
when
they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired
to
stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that,
isn't
it.

LaVonne


Again, the term "justify" is used.

Yes. Logical to use it.

Do you have to justify eating?

No, unless the eating has become gluttony.

Do you have to justify sleeping?

No, unless the sleeping has become narcolepsy or due to a mental
disorder like clinical depression.

You
justify bad things, not good things.

I justify, quite eloquently I think, my belief in not spanking. I
consider that a good thing.

Your attempt to label all things that YOU call good and deny others
the right to justify what THEY call good, suggests that you wish to be
the arbiter of what are good things and bad things.

The point of the debate is to determine that, not arrogantly declare
it an accomplished fact....one of the more ugly characteristics of the
Theosophists.


Discipline is a good thing.

Absolutely. I am completely in agreement.

Do you know the aetiology of that word? What the latin, "discere" or
"discere" means?

Here's an example of use in latin:

ediscendis -- ablative plural feminine of gerund(ive) of e¯disco¯,
e¯discere, e¯didici, - learn, memorize -- in learning

I see nothing about punishment to facilitate learning.

And yet another:

didicit -- verb; 3rd person singular perfect of disco¯, discere,
didici¯, - learn -- knew

And another:

discenda -- verbal adjective; ablative singular feminine of disco¯,
discere, didici¯, - learn -- learning

Still no pain mentioned.

Yes, children do need discipline and I would be the first to defend
and support your obligation to give learning through discipline.

And yes, it is possible to use punishment to teach, but why would one
of another non punitive method had more lasting results with less
chance of side effects?

There is ample "punishment" in the world without the teacher using it
too.

Each day we let the parental protective boundaries out just a tad more
so the child can explore the consequencs of their behavior. We limit
it for their safety. Why would we want to ad pain to it when the child
is already experiencing pain from his environment?

I've asked many mothers (as they are more often the one that does it)
what happened the first time they slapped or spanked their child? It's
been pretty standard for them to answer that the baby expressed
surprised disbelief, in reverse order of course.

First they are stunned at the source of the pain, then they do not
believe it...they ignore the mother. She has to hit again, and the
cycle starts.

The child accepts, in only a few swats, the source, and that source is
the beloved mother, who has up to that point given the baby everything
he or she needs to survive, to feel good, to be charged up with the
energy to explore. That is a clear messgae to the baby.

She deserves, totally, what the mother delivers in the way of
parenting.

And if it's pain, she deserves pain. And her exploritory behavior
deserves pain. Forever she will be influenced as she explores the
world later with that first discovery of what she deserved, and her
life will be intertwined with pain.

As any adult. Is life painful?

When you find one that says, emphatically, "no!" you very likely only
found an unspanked person but one that has not been punished by their
parents. They learned from the world what was painfully dangerous, and
they learned from their parents what was expected of them in the way
of social and personal responsibility.

Discovering one is enough to make anyone that never encountered
someone like that before break down and cry.

I met my first one on a train. A young women that seemed uncommonly
quiet, but gently assertive, and above all very empathetic.

I was so curious I moved over by her in the club car and began to
probe into her past. I'd never met and unspanked person before,
outside of my own child, my first born at that time, and only months
old.

The young lady smiled at my questions and told where she thought I was
going, and answered for me. "No, I wasn't spanked or punished as a
child. All I recall are my parents coming to my aid when I did
something that they didn't want me too and teaching me."

She knew that others were spanked and punished and humiliated, but it
just didn't compute for her. I do hope she married and had some
children.

She certainly didn't seem to be a criminal or menace to society.

Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law

What Law are you referring to here?

out and using
that to discredit the Old Testament.

No, in fact that is a lie. She not only didn't pick out some "part,"
she mentioned yours and others. And she did not even attempt to
discredit the Old Testament, just to question it's appropriateness in
modern times, and more especially with the advent of the NT.

Are you jewish?

The answer to that can be quite complex, but I'll make it simple and
leave out a whole lot of details.

You will, if I am not mistaken, go to quoting your own carefully
picked biblical citations, skirting any that might be construed by
intelligent people as refuting your claims.


Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under
the
law.

So being a believer in the Spirit gives you license to use punishment
on little children. Hmmm. Interesting. And you believe that the Old
Testament holds dominion over the NT?

There is a whole lot more to it, of course. The Law was for the
Jews,
not the Gentiles.

You are a jew?

Sacrifice no longer needs to be practiced because
Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.

Interesting. I consider children who are punished to teach them as a
sacrifice, by Christians, to the Old Testament, as surely as Solomon
would have had the child cleaved in two had the real mother not
sacrificed.

I am not happy with OT Christians. Christ is not in it.

In the NT, God mad all food clean.
The list goes on.

Yes. But by avoiding the fact she brought up, that Jesus never
sanctioned the use of pain to parent you have shown what...that you
are devious?

So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water.

I see. So you are going to only admit to those parts of the OT being
valid that fit your agenda. Is that because you are now speaking
directly with god and she has told you what she meant to be retained
and what discarded?

Even if
it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
city gates

Sure there are. On that freeway coming in one end of the city and
going out the other.

and no group of city officials hanging out there.

Well, you might have to go to city hall, but that's no biggy.

You wish to be a literalist when it suits our purpose, but an
apologist when the other person's argument defeats you. I see.

Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Trying to wriggle out from under the weight of that argument by
denying parts of the OT and cleaving to others is a great deal worse
than being simply silly. It's a lie. It is weaseling of the worst
sort. How can you claim you are a Christian? Well without blushing.

Now, moving on to the second part of my project at disassembling the
above argument:

Your "project"...oh, that's really goood.

Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel.

From a despot and brute? Okay, if you say so.

We are free
to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course.

We are free to disregard the OT and NT, and the OT if we are a
Christian.

And of course there is a risk. All life is a risk. I have disregarded
the OT for the better part of 40 years, and I've come to no harm, my
children and the children I've worked with turned out wonderfully with
few acceptions, and those were the ones that were pain and humiliation
parented beyond my small capacity to recover and heal them from.

God's wisdom does not
pass away.

There is no god. Nor gods. There are no spirits in the sky or ground.
There is no devil or heaven or hell. It's all a set of fairy tales
generated by folks trying very hard to understand and explain (a
function of the human brain...it's called rationalizing) the poorly
understood physical universe.

The true mystery of our existence and that of the universe is much
larger than books of fairytale sayings.

He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
wise advice in Proverbs still stands.

There is no bearded old man called Yehwah or Allah or any other name.
That image is the symbol of our once allpowerful father that protected
us and awed us with his great booming voice, his large powerful hands,
his quickness and his knowing what we did not.

As he, our real father aged we replace him with the image of him we
had as tiny babies. We wish to be cared for as we were then, and we
built and still build, legends and mysteries around that hungered for
image.

In materlinial societies is done with a goddess mother image and it is
just as much a fairy tale to comfort us.

As you die you will see the truth. Your brain will work overtime to
bring that image to you and bits and pieces of the great fairy tale of
the major religions and philosophies, but you will know it's all false
at that moment of death, and that you are going to cease to exist,
totally.

You get to die mad. I'll die quite at peace with endless nothingness.


Ray Drouillard


You can't defend spanking by calling on the authority of nonexistant
beings, Ray. They have no proof to give you, just your childish faith
and the need for it to shelter you from the reality that you are
entirely on your own in the universe, completely in charge of what you
do and what happens to you.

If you wish to call on God and His Word, Ray, I'll have to ask you to
introduce me, personally. Let me know if it's okay to shake hands, or
maybe hug.

I don't accept the authority of people that I cannot meet. And I can
meet anyone alive if I have the time and money to travel.

No "god" is guiding you or protecting you, Ray.

You are, like us all, just potentially a flat possum, roadkill, on the
universal highway of life. And that is far more awe inspiring to me
than some old outmoded fairytail. The NOT knowing is the same
delicious thrill children feel when their father makes loud growling
noises and chases them about playfully.

This universe is going to grab me up one day, and I'll get to see if
nonthingness is true, or if there is something after death. But I'm
pretty convinced that it isn't going to be some old bearded ancient
sitting on a cloud borne throne weighing my "sins" or my belief in his
"son."

If I have to do that then I'm just as happy giving up eternal life. I
wouldn't want to spend it with a lot of Christians I know.

Kane