Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Corporal Punishment

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 4:26:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Against........

1) It establishes that physically hitting people is ok when they anger you

2) For alot of people it's really just a release of their own anger, but sanctified under the banner of discipline oh and let's not forget we can use the bible, spare the rod spoil the child. Hey I have God on my side............

3) It sets an example that it's ok to use violence to get people to comply with you.

4) It isn't a fair fight, oh big man or woman hitting a child.............yeah try doing that on some one your own size, you might pick the wrong person and they hit back and you never walk again. But hey you don't have to worry about that if you hit a child..........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:38:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Yeah and either exodus or deuteronomy says stone your child to death if s/he curses you or disobeys you.

I wouldn't place much trust in those old goat fvckers, to decide how to bring up kids.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:46:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:38:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Yeah and either exodus or deuteronomy says stone your child to death if s/he curses you or disobeys you.

I wouldn't place much trust in those old goat fvckers, to decide how to bring up kids.

News flash, it even quotes the verse I mentioned from the Old Testament in the New Testament ... However the one you mentioned did not and thus by far only indicates the historical background of how it used to be. So before you start quoting scripture please be sure you understand and keep it in context.

And I won't even bother stating what you spud like here with your last comment. But aight. Thanks for the comment. Peace!
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 8:56:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:46:16 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:38:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Yeah and either exodus or deuteronomy says stone your child to death if s/he curses you or disobeys you.

I wouldn't place much trust in those old goat fvckers, to decide how to bring up kids.

News flash, it even quotes the verse I mentioned from the Old Testament in the New Testament ... However the one you mentioned did not and thus by far only indicates the historical background of how it used to be. So before you start quoting scripture please be sure you understand and keep it in context.

And I won't even bother stating what you spud like here with your last comment. But aight. Thanks for the comment. Peace!

Well just say that you don't believe the bible (OT&NT) don't rag me. I don't care what the stupid book says, it was you who referenced the BOOK.

If you don't want to use the freakin' thing then don't. If you do then cop the whole bloody book.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:02:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

It makes no difference if parents beat their children or give them everything they want. The parents aren't obeying the commandments of God anyway.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:15:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:02:24 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

It makes no difference if parents beat their children or give them everything they want. The parents aren't obeying the commandments of God anyway.

What did god tell you a minute ago bio? Oh can't remember, not very impressive your god is he, you can't remember what he says.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:40:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:15:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:24 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

It makes no difference if parents beat their children or give them everything they want. The parents aren't obeying the commandments of God anyway.

What did god tell you a minute ago bio? Oh can't remember, not very impressive your god is he, you can't remember what he says.

You're one of God's stupid people who have no knowledge.

Jeremiah 10
14: Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.
15: They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:47:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 8:56:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:46:16 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:38:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Yeah and either exodus or deuteronomy says stone your child to death if s/he curses you or disobeys you.

I wouldn't place much trust in those old goat fvckers, to decide how to bring up kids.

News flash, it even quotes the verse I mentioned from the Old Testament in the New Testament ... However the one you mentioned did not and thus by far only indicates the historical background of how it used to be. So before you start quoting scripture please be sure you understand and keep it in context.

And I won't even bother stating what you spud like here with your last comment. But aight. Thanks for the comment. Peace!

Well just say that you don't believe the bible (OT&NT) don't rag me. I don't care what the stupid book says, it was you who referenced the BOOK.

If you don't want to use the freakin' thing then don't. If you do then cop the whole bloody book.

Calm down lol ... I do hold to the bible! Soo yeah, I'll quote it... But thanks for the convo..
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 2:38:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 4:26:25 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Against........

1) It establishes that physically hitting people is ok when they anger you

Isn't this only if a child is disciplined out of anger? Something almost all CP advocates would agree isn't lawful.

2) For alot of people it's really just a release of their own anger, but sanctified under the banner of discipline oh and let's not forget we can use the bible, spare the rod spoil the child. Hey I have God on my side............

Conjecture.

3) It sets an example that it's ok to use violence to get people to comply with you.

A spanking on the bottom isn't violent at all when implemented properly; just like time-out isn't neglect when implemented properly. However, if using a mild measure of pain to get a disobeying/defiant child to comply is objectively wrong, and does indeed set a bad example, what is your view on the police using force/violence to apprehend defiant, law breaking citizens? Is it wrong for them to use force against some?

4) It isn't a fair fight, oh big man or woman hitting a child.............yeah try doing that on some one your own size, you might pick the wrong person and they hit back and you never walk again. But hey you don't have to worry about that if you hit a child..........

One only has authority over there children, whom they love and cherish more than anything, and those whom live under their roof.

Its not about being a Big man or woman, that whole rant is an immature waste of characters... Its about being strong enough wise enough to discipline that way, when its needed, and consistently. Restoring the child after he's been punished and reassuring him/her of your love and commitment to them.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 3:10:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 2:38:44 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/22/2014 4:26:25 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Against........

1) It establishes that physically hitting people is ok when they anger you

Isn't this only if a child is disciplined out of anger? Something almost all CP advocates would agree isn't lawful.

2) For alot of people it's really just a release of their own anger, but sanctified under the banner of discipline oh and let's not forget we can use the bible, spare the rod spoil the child. Hey I have God on my side............

Conjecture.

Hardly, I have heard people use that verse as divine permission.

3) It sets an example that it's ok to use violence to get people to comply with you.

A spanking on the bottom isn't violent at all when implemented properly; just like time-out isn't neglect when implemented properly. However, if using a mild measure of pain to get a disobeying/defiant child to comply is objectively wrong, and does indeed set a bad example, what is your view on the police using force/violence to apprehend defiant, law breaking citizens? Is it wrong for them to use force against some?

It's still an act of violence, you can get away with saying it's nothing compared to say getting your arms broken, but to say oh if it's implemented properly suddenly it isn't violence. Well you had to lie, and if you position is such you had to lie to yourself to justify your argument...............you lose sir.

Once again if you have to resort to using police using violence on criminals to justify violence on a child, what does that say about your position eh ?

4) It isn't a fair fight, oh big man or woman hitting a child.............yeah try doing that on some one your own size, you might pick the wrong person and they hit back and you never walk again. But hey you don't have to worry about that if you hit a child..........

One only has authority over there children, whom they love and cherish more than anything, and those whom live under their roof.

Now isn't that interesting, most people wouldn't dare let some one else hit their child in the name of discipline, yet those same people don't have a problem when they do it.

Smells like a double standard to me........but but but, when I do it, it's out of love........

Its not about being a Big man or woman, that whole rant is an immature waste of characters... Its about being strong enough wise enough to discipline that way, when its needed, and consistently. Restoring the child after he's been punished and reassuring him/her of your love and commitment to them.

Being strong enough to hit a child, LMAO. Look how strong I am to institute this disciple, as I hit this child in the name of disciple.

Maybe in your perfect world this is how it turns out, but just like communism how it turns out in theory and how it turns out in practice are two different things.

If you raise a generation of children who learn that hitting/violence is a direct path to get compliance from other people, well just remember whom they learn't this off, and don't complain when they learn the lesson all to well.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 4:55:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:47:47 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 8:56:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:46:16 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:38:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Yeah and either exodus or deuteronomy says stone your child to death if s/he curses you or disobeys you.

I wouldn't place much trust in those old goat fvckers, to decide how to bring up kids.

News flash, it even quotes the verse I mentioned from the Old Testament in the New Testament ... However the one you mentioned did not and thus by far only indicates the historical background of how it used to be. So before you start quoting scripture please be sure you understand and keep it in context.

And I won't even bother stating what you spud like here with your last comment. But aight. Thanks for the comment. Peace!

Well just say that you don't believe the bible (OT&NT) don't rag me. I don't care what the stupid book says, it was you who referenced the BOOK.

If you don't want to use the freakin' thing then don't. If you do then cop the whole bloody book.

Calm down lol ... I do hold to the bible! Soo yeah, I'll quote it... But thanks for the convo..

It wasn't a convo. It was me educating you in regards to your book and you willfully choosing to blind yourself to that education. It's absolutely necessary for you to do that if you still want to believe your book, don't worry, I understand.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:06:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 4:55:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:47:47 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 8:56:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:46:16 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:38:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Yeah and either exodus or deuteronomy says stone your child to death if s/he curses you or disobeys you.

I wouldn't place much trust in those old goat fvckers, to decide how to bring up kids.

News flash, it even quotes the verse I mentioned from the Old Testament in the New Testament ... However the one you mentioned did not and thus by far only indicates the historical background of how it used to be. So before you start quoting scripture please be sure you understand and keep it in context.

And I won't even bother stating what you spud like here with your last comment. But aight. Thanks for the comment. Peace!

Well just say that you don't believe the bible (OT&NT) don't rag me. I don't care what the stupid book says, it was you who referenced the BOOK.

If you don't want to use the freakin' thing then don't. If you do then cop the whole bloody book.

Calm down lol ... I do hold to the bible! Soo yeah, I'll quote it... But thanks for the convo..

It wasn't a convo. It was me educating you in regards to your book and you willfully choosing to blind yourself to that education. It's absolutely necessary for you to do that if you still want to believe your book, don't worry, I understand.

I was being sarcastic Hun... But aight... Thanks for making efforts in trying to "educate" me to something I completely know already... But hey I'm open to learning what others have to say...
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:56:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

There are situations in which nothing other than a spanking works. I will say, however, that corporal punishment is oftentimes more about venting the adult's anger than it is about bringing the child back into line.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:02:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 3:10:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:38:44 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/22/2014 4:26:25 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Against........

1) It establishes that physically hitting people is ok when they anger you

Isn't this only if a child is disciplined out of anger? Something almost all CP advocates would agree isn't lawful.

2) For alot of people it's really just a release of their own anger, but sanctified under the banner of discipline oh and let's not forget we can use the bible, spare the rod spoil the child. Hey I have God on my side............

Conjecture.

Hardly, I have heard people use that verse as divine permission.

3) It sets an example that it's ok to use violence to get people to comply with you.

A spanking on the bottom isn't violent at all when implemented properly; just like time-out isn't neglect when implemented properly. However, if using a mild measure of pain to get a disobeying/defiant child to comply is objectively wrong, and does indeed set a bad example, what is your view on the police using force/violence to apprehend defiant, law breaking citizens? Is it wrong for them to use force against some?

It's still an act of violence, you can get away with saying it's nothing compared to say getting your arms broken, but to say oh if it's implemented properly suddenly it isn't violence. Well you had to lie, and if you position is such you had to lie to yourself to justify your argument...............you lose sir.
\:
Once again if you have to resort to using police using violence on criminals to justify violence on a child, what does that say about your position eh ?

4) It isn't a fair fight, oh big man or woman hitting a child.............yeah try doing that on some one your own size, you might pick the wrong person and they hit back and you never walk again. But hey you don't have to worry about that if you hit a child..........

One only has authority over there children, whom they love and cherish more than anything, and those whom live under their roof.

Now isn't that interesting, most people wouldn't dare let some one else hit their child in the name of discipline, yet those same people don't have a problem when they do it.
Smells like a double standard to me........but but but, when I do it, it's out of love........

I fail to see how this is supposed to be a double standard. We tell our children not to talk to strangers, "Don't get into a car with a stranger", but somehow because we advocate corporal punishment we're suppose to allow a stranger to spank our child!? BS! Spanking teaches cause and effect plain and simple. It is also not about channeling anger into a belt. There are other methods, and spanking should not always be the first IMO, but I feel it is important for a parent to have "spanking" in the disciplnary arsenal.

Its not about being a Big man or woman, that whole rant is an immature waste of characters... Its about being strong enough wise enough to discipline that way, when its needed, and consistently. Restoring the child after he's been punished and reassuring him/her of your love and commitment to them.

Being strong enough to hit a child, LMAO. Look how strong I am to institute this disciple, as I hit this child in the name of disciple.

Maybe in your perfect world this is how it turns out, but just like communism how it turns out in theory and how it turns out in practice are two different things.

If you raise a generation of children who learn that hitting/violence is a direct path to get compliance from other people, well just remember whom they learn't this off, and don't complain when they learn the lesson all to well.

Umm, this wouldn't be the first generation raised on spanking. I suppose your saying all of the good charecteristics of previous generations had nothing to do with discipline they had as children? Even though, this would have undoubtedly have included spanking.. Also, my definition of "spanking" and yours differ. Hitting a child out of anger is wrong, and I am not advocating this.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:07:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:06:30 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:55:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:47:47 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 8:56:29 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:46:16 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:38:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:29:09 AM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Since this is the religion section, I'll just say Hebrews says if you love your child you'll chastise them. In the Old Testament it also says spare not the rod. So with that said, that should show which I'm holding to. I'm not a parent yet, but I know what would be required on my end. There is a difference between beating a child and just mildly correcting them.
Yeah and either exodus or deuteronomy says stone your child to death if s/he curses you or disobeys you.

I wouldn't place much trust in those old goat fvckers, to decide how to bring up kids.

News flash, it even quotes the verse I mentioned from the Old Testament in the New Testament ... However the one you mentioned did not and thus by far only indicates the historical background of how it used to be. So before you start quoting scripture please be sure you understand and keep it in context.

And I won't even bother stating what you spud like here with your last comment. But aight. Thanks for the comment. Peace!

Well just say that you don't believe the bible (OT&NT) don't rag me. I don't care what the stupid book says, it was you who referenced the BOOK.

If you don't want to use the freakin' thing then don't. If you do then cop the whole bloody book.

Calm down lol ... I do hold to the bible! Soo yeah, I'll quote it... But thanks for the convo..

It wasn't a convo. It was me educating you in regards to your book and you willfully choosing to blind yourself to that education. It's absolutely necessary for you to do that if you still want to believe your book, don't worry, I understand.

I was being sarcastic Hun... But aight... Thanks for making efforts in trying to "educate" me to something I completely know already... But hey I'm open to learning what others have to say...

If you actually did understand then there would be no need for your lack of convo.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 12:41:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you beat your child to death, then you won't have to listen to them.

If you beat your child into submission, it's possible he will listen to you.

If you have a conversation with your child in a gentle manner, it's more likely he'll listen to you.

If you show your child how to obey ALL God's commandments, most likely he'll listen to you.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:46:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 3:10:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
2) For alot of people it's really just a release of their own anger, but sanctified under the banner of discipline oh and let's not forget we can use the bible, spare the rod spoil the child. Hey I have God on my side............

Conjecture.

Hardly, I have heard people use that verse as divine permission.

I wasn't talking about the the verse, but it's more than permission; its an order.

It's still an act of violence, you can get away with saying it's nothing compared to say getting your arms broken, but to say oh if it's implemented properly suddenly it isn't violence. Well you had to lie, and if you position is such you had to lie to yourself to justify your argument...............you lose sir.

I don't agree, and if you want to get into semantics, the definition of violence doesn't agree with you either. I didn't compare spanking to anything, nor did I say anything like "It's not as bad as: [insert trauma]". It doesn't require any sort of defense... if you can't be honest enough to admit that then I don't wish to continue discussing this with you.

Once again if you have to resort to using police using violence on criminals to justify violence on a child, what does that say about your position eh ?

Lol, it wasn't intended to justify, it was to expose you're double standard in regards to "violence" or "physical contact".

One only has authority over there children, whom they love and cherish more than anything, and those whom live under their roof.

Now isn't that interesting, most people wouldn't dare let some one else hit their child in the name of discipline, yet those same people don't have a problem when they do it.

Smells like a double standard to me........but but but, when I do it, it's out of love........

Lol, you're new at the whole logic thing huh? That was what we call non-sequitur.

First of all, as their parent it is my responsibility to carry out any discipline and its ONLY appropriate for my to carry it out. Second, who in the world loves my children as much or more than my wife and I? No one but God. You don't, CPS doesn't, the state doesn't, the world doesn't... none of you could care less about my children or how they turn out until they vandalize your property, beat up your kids, or steal from you...

Being strong enough to hit a child, LMAO. Look how strong I am to institute this disciple, as I hit this child in the name of disciple.

Are you like 12 or something? Do you have children? If so, do you have to fight the urge NOT to hit them? I seriously doubt it. It's easy not to spank my kids... they are adorable, and can turn any offense no matter how extreme into a cute little charade.. its very difficult to have to discipline them (spanking, telling them no, letting them cry, giving them a time-out, etc).

Maybe in your perfect world this is how it turns out, but just like communism how it turns out in theory and how it turns out in practice are two different things.

I live in the real world, once you get here, maybe you'll understand.

If you raise a generation of children who learn that hitting/violence is a direct path to get compliance from other people, well just remember whom they learn't this off, and don't complain when they learn the lesson all to well.

Yeah, if thats what you taught them... but parenting is a bit ore complex than that. Simply because a child gets swatted on the but isn't going to make them more violent and there aren't and accurate or current studies that say such a thing...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:48:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:56:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

There are situations in which nothing other than a spanking works. I will say, however, that corporal punishment is oftentimes more about venting the adult's anger than it is about bringing the child back into line.

I've been a witness to this; especially in the black community...

This is where most anti-CP folks get their ammunition from, and I agree with them in regards to the type of abuse these children have to go through...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:55:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:48:05 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:56:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

There are situations in which nothing other than a spanking works. I will say, however, that corporal punishment is oftentimes more about venting the adult's anger than it is about bringing the child back into line.

I've been a witness to this; especially in the black community...

LOL I haven't. I take the necessary measures not to find myself in the "black community." I have no business there, just as they have no business in my community, so I would have to say, "If you say so" on the subject.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:02:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:46:11 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 3:10:48 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
2) For alot of people it's really just a release of their own anger, but sanctified under the banner of discipline oh and let's not forget we can use the bible, spare the rod spoil the child. Hey I have God on my side............

Conjecture.

Hardly, I have heard people use that verse as divine permission.

I wasn't talking about the the verse, but it's more than permission; its an order.

Oh golly. An order from God right ?


It's still an act of violence, you can get away with saying it's nothing compared to say getting your arms broken, but to say oh if it's implemented properly suddenly it isn't violence. Well you had to lie, and if you position is such you had to lie to yourself to justify your argument...............you lose sir.

I don't agree, and if you want to get into semantics, the definition of violence doesn't agree with you either. I didn't compare spanking to anything, nor did I say anything like "It's not as bad as: [insert trauma]". It doesn't require any sort of defense... if you can't be honest enough to admit that then I don't wish to continue discussing this with you.

Once again if you have to resort to using police using violence on criminals to justify violence on a child, what does that say about your position eh ?

Lol, it wasn't intended to justify, it was to expose you're double standard in regards to "violence" or "physical contact".

I was pointing out that you think that violence on a criminal is morally equivalent to violence on a child, thus if we accept one we should accept the other.

Your the one who tried to use one to justify the other.



One only has authority over there children, whom they love and cherish more than anything, and those whom live under their roof.

Now isn't that interesting, most people wouldn't dare let some one else hit their child in the name of discipline, yet those same people don't have a problem when they do it.

Smells like a double standard to me........but but but, when I do it, it's out of love........

Lol, you're new at the whole logic thing huh? That was what we call non-sequitur.

First of all, as their parent it is my responsibility to carry out any discipline and its ONLY appropriate for my to carry it out. Second, who in the world loves my children as much or more than my wife and I? No one but God. You don't, CPS doesn't, the state doesn't, the world doesn't... none of you could care less about my children or how they turn out until they vandalize your property, beat up your kids, or steal from you...

If I was all powerful and it required me to only make the decision and not exert any effort on my part........cause you know, I am all powerful, if your child had their eyes ripped out I would restore them.

So about that God of yours...................he cares, he cares more than anyone about the children.........

Tell me about the real world again eh ?





Being strong enough to hit a child, LMAO. Look how strong I am to institute this disciple, as I hit this child in the name of disciple.

Are you like 12 or something? Do you have children? If so, do you have to fight the urge NOT to hit them? I seriously doubt it. It's easy not to spank my kids... they are adorable, and can turn any offense no matter how extreme into a cute little charade.. its very difficult to have to discipline them (spanking, telling them no, letting them cry, giving them a time-out, etc).

Well arn't you something, I think we could all learn a lesson from you, clearly you are brave to not be taken in by their adorability, and can see through that to give them the spanking they deserve.........no need.

I applaud your bravery sir.

As I also mentioned, kids don't hit back very hard..............


Maybe in your perfect world this is how it turns out, but just like communism how it turns out in theory and how it turns out in practice are two different things.

I live in the real world, once you get here, maybe you'll understand.

OH yes para, I think we have seen an insight into your world.


If you raise a generation of children who learn that hitting/violence is a direct path to get compliance from other people, well just remember whom they learn't this off, and don't complain when they learn the lesson all to well.

Yeah, if thats what you taught them... but parenting is a bit ore complex than that. Simply because a child gets swatted on the but isn't going to make them more violent and there aren't and accurate or current studies that say such a thing...

Like i said children learn, some may see the lesson more through action rather than your story about how you hit them..............cause you have too...........in the name of disciple..................and no one loves you more than God.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:13:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am for physical discipline, I am against child abuse. The main reason why problems are starting to arise is due to alcohol fueled domestic violence which has cause a social stigma against any sort of physical reprimand in the home.

If administered correctly, physical discipline shouldn't hurt a child, but it should definitely create a negative sensation to associate with whatever action warranted the administration of the discipline. The discretion belongs to the parent, who hopefully loves their child enough to ensure that a negative feeling of sorts is applied to any action the parent believes to be hazardous physically or socially. Usually this negative sensation is physical discipline as telling a child why what they did was wrong simply doesn't work.

I don't understand the Western society taboo towards pain. Physical discipline has been used for countless generations for centuries across every culture and has worked universally. Suddenly we as a society start to complain about the behavior of our youth while simultaneously claiming that it is henceforth wrong to discipline your children physically. Coincidence? I think not.

Unless it can be demonstrated that it is absolutely morally wrong to physically reprimand a child, no changes need to be made to the current working system. I class it in the same category as vegans who hold it against everyone else who believes it is ok to eat meat.

So long as parents retain a deal of caution with physical discipline such as giving warnings before spankings, ensuring they themselves are also emotionally troubled when faced with giving their children physical discipline and ensuring no mark is left that would indicate the pain did not match the crime, physical discipline will only be left with the benefits it provides -reinforcement and discipline.

Psychologists recognise that no adverse affects result from physical discipline, physical abuse is another story, and I believe this is the one we have to fix as it seems to be the one people in this debate get confused over.

I myself would like to see a culture change, one that doesn't hold pain as a taboo but holds it as an integral part of life that must be dealt with, where necessary used, but never ever abused.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 12:59:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:55:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:48:05 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:56:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

There are situations in which nothing other than a spanking works. I will say, however, that corporal punishment is oftentimes more about venting the adult's anger than it is about bringing the child back into line.

I've been a witness to this; especially in the black community...

LOL I haven't. I take the necessary measures not to find myself in the "black community." I have no business there, just as they have no business in my community, so I would have to say, "If you say so" on the subject.

Wow!!
Suddenly BoG's illness seems preferable.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 1:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 12:59:03 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:55:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:48:05 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:56:45 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

There are situations in which nothing other than a spanking works. I will say, however, that corporal punishment is oftentimes more about venting the adult's anger than it is about bringing the child back into line.

I've been a witness to this; especially in the black community...

LOL I haven't. I take the necessary measures not to find myself in the "black community." I have no business there, just as they have no business in my community, so I would have to say, "If you say so" on the subject.

Wow!!
Suddenly BoG's illness seems preferable.

Preferable to what? I told Paradox that I neither agree nor disagree with him because I have no experience concerning his examples - thus I simply agree because I don't know. That has nothing to do with Saint Brad.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 12:20:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 1:02:42 PM, annanicole wrote:

LOL I haven't. I take the necessary measures not to find myself in the "black community." I have no business there, just as they have no business in my community, so I would have to say, "If you say so" on the subject.

Wow!!
Suddenly BoG's illness seems preferable.

Preferable to what? I told Paradox that I neither agree nor disagree with him because I have no experience concerning his examples - thus I simply agree because I don't know. That has nothing to do with Saint Brad.

Ok anna, Perhaps it's unconscious on your part.

I'm new here, so I don't know. But is this sentiment common on this site? Does no one see it?
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 3:03:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Within the context of Christianity, the corporal punishment debate centralizes on the meaning of Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (King James Version)

There are those who interpret this literally, and take it to mean that if a father (and not a mother, notice the gender-usage) fails to beat his children, the father does not love his children because he fails to impose and raise his children in a disciplined environment. The irony is that the fundamentalists tend not to make distinctions among beating sons and daughters, despite the fact that the first clause's gender specificity is their grounds for concluding that the father is to be the disciplinarian, and therefore the head of household -but that's another issue for another day. The actual meaning of that verse is that parents must teach their children right from wrong.

But the debate centralizes on a question of hermeneutics: is the bible to be literally interpreted, or not? The overreaching stupidity of that question centralizes on the simple fact that all modern versions of the bible are the product of human translation over time, which is why it's important to closely scrutinize the text and abstract principles from the word of God -and not on what could very likely is human error. Those who posit that, especially the NIV version of the bible is sufficient to literally interpret ignore the reality that the NIV was adapted from prior english language versions, which were translated from greek and latin, which were subject to the interpretational whims of perfectly fallible human beings through time and space. Said as clearly as possible, the only text we have access to is something that's inexorably tainted by an inexorably human stain. So, while God is perfect, without flaw and omnipotent, men are none of those things -but the text we read in the bible could only be literally interpreted if men were themselves without flaw -but the fundamentalists are too myopic and inept to recognize that.

Consequently, we have a debate between those who think that beating their children is commanded by the Christian God and those who, rather than taking issue with the premise of the debate, want to argue on the other side that the "fundamentalists" are "backwards mouth breathing neanderthals" (I only exaggerate a bit) -and this question goes on, while the essential problem that inculcates this (manifestly absurd) issue remains unaddressed. And yet, whenever anyone actually takes the time to talk about why, more or less, both sides are incoherent, both sides get "testy" because of their personal stake in "winning" the argument, rather than being right.

The point of the verse is to stress the necessity of parents teaching children right from wrong. The point is not a divine instruction to beat thy offspring.
Tsar of DDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 3:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 3:03:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Within the context of Christianity, the corporal punishment debate centralizes on the meaning of Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (King James Version)

There are those who interpret this literally, and take it to mean that if a father (and not a mother, notice the gender-usage) fails to beat his children, the father does not love his children because he fails to impose and raise his children in a disciplined environment. The irony is that the fundamentalists tend not to make distinctions among beating sons and daughters, despite the fact that the first clause's gender specificity is their grounds for concluding that the father is to be the disciplinarian, and therefore the head of household -but that's another issue for another day. The actual meaning of that verse is that parents must teach their children right from wrong.

But the debate centralizes on a question of hermeneutics: is the bible to be literally interpreted, or not? The overreaching stupidity of that question centralizes on the simple fact that all modern versions of the bible are the product of human translation over time, which is why it's important to closely scrutinize the text and abstract principles from the word of God -and not on what could very likely is human error. Those who posit that, especially the NIV version of the bible is sufficient to literally interpret ignore the reality that the NIV was adapted from prior english language versions, which were translated from greek and latin, which were subject to the interpretational whims of perfectly fallible human beings through time and space. Said as clearly as possible, the only text we have access to is something that's inexorably tainted by an inexorably human stain. So, while God is perfect, without flaw and omnipotent, men are none of those things -but the text we read in the bible could only be literally interpreted if men were themselves without flaw -but the fundamentalists are too myopic and inept to recognize that.

Consequently, we have a debate between those who think that beating their children is commanded by the Christian God and those who, rather than taking issue with the premise of the debate, want to argue on the other side that the "fundamentalists" are "backwards mouth breathing neanderthals" (I only exaggerate a bit) -and this question goes on, while the essential problem that inculcates this (manifestly absurd) issue remains unaddressed. And yet, whenever anyone actually takes the time to talk about why, more or less, both sides are incoherent, both sides get "testy" because of their personal stake in "winning" the argument, rather than being right.

The point of the verse is to stress the necessity of parents teaching children right from wrong. The point is not a divine instruction to beat thy offspring.

Concerning this statement: "all modern versions of the bible are the product of human translation over time, which is why it's important to closely scrutinize the text and abstract principles from the word of God -and not on what could very likely is human error. Those who posit that, especially the NIV version of the bible is sufficient to literally interpret ignore the reality that the NIV was adapted from prior english language versions, which were translated from greek and latin, which were subject to the interpretational whims of perfectly fallible human beings through time and space." (Bolded emphasis mine)

Where in the world did you come up with that? That seems to me to be a dangerous position. (I do not care for the NIV at all, but not for those reasons. I would never recommend its use. It is a biased translation, twisted where possible into conformity with a certain belief system.) You are making it sound as if the Greek manuscripts represent the Word of God, but in the process of translating into English, we lose it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 3:32:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 3:26:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:03:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Within the context of Christianity, the corporal punishment debate centralizes on the meaning of Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (King James Version)

There are those who interpret this literally, and take it to mean that if a father (and not a mother, notice the gender-usage) fails to beat his children, the father does not love his children because he fails to impose and raise his children in a disciplined environment. The irony is that the fundamentalists tend not to make distinctions among beating sons and daughters, despite the fact that the first clause's gender specificity is their grounds for concluding that the father is to be the disciplinarian, and therefore the head of household -but that's another issue for another day. The actual meaning of that verse is that parents must teach their children right from wrong.

But the debate centralizes on a question of hermeneutics: is the bible to be literally interpreted, or not? The overreaching stupidity of that question centralizes on the simple fact that all modern versions of the bible are the product of human translation over time, which is why it's important to closely scrutinize the text and abstract principles from the word of God -and not on what could very likely is human error. Those who posit that, especially the NIV version of the bible is sufficient to literally interpret ignore the reality that the NIV was adapted from prior english language versions, which were translated from greek and latin, which were subject to the interpretational whims of perfectly fallible human beings through time and space. Said as clearly as possible, the only text we have access to is something that's inexorably tainted by an inexorably human stain. So, while God is perfect, without flaw and omnipotent, men are none of those things -but the text we read in the bible could only be literally interpreted if men were themselves without flaw -but the fundamentalists are too myopic and inept to recognize that.

Consequently, we have a debate between those who think that beating their children is commanded by the Christian God and those who, rather than taking issue with the premise of the debate, want to argue on the other side that the "fundamentalists" are "backwards mouth breathing neanderthals" (I only exaggerate a bit) -and this question goes on, while the essential problem that inculcates this (manifestly absurd) issue remains unaddressed. And yet, whenever anyone actually takes the time to talk about why, more or less, both sides are incoherent, both sides get "testy" because of their personal stake in "winning" the argument, rather than being right.

The point of the verse is to stress the necessity of parents teaching children right from wrong. The point is not a divine instruction to beat thy offspring.


Concerning this statement: "all modern versions of the bible are the product of human translation over time, which is why it's important to closely scrutinize the text and abstract principles from the word of God -and not on what could very likely is human error. Those who posit that, especially the NIV version of the bible is sufficient to literally interpret ignore the reality that the NIV was adapted from prior english language versions, which were translated from greek and latin, which were subject to the interpretational whims of perfectly fallible human beings through time and space." (Bolded emphasis mine)

Where in the world did you come up with that? That seems to me to be a dangerous position. (I do not care for the NIV at all, but not for those reasons. I would never recommend its use. It is a biased translation, twisted where possible into conformity with a certain belief system.) You are making it sound as if the Greek manuscripts represent the Word of God, but in the process of translating into English, we lose it.

That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that the fact that scripture has been translated numerous times over the millennia by numerous different people rules out the possibility of their being infallible, because the translators were human (and fallible). That doesn't render the scripture we have now meaningless or incoherent, though. It only stresses the necessity of our carefully considering the scripture, and not interpreting everything literally.
Tsar of DDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 4:07:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 3:32:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:26:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:03:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/22/2014 3:13:46 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I am interested to here what you all believe about CP (spanking).

From what I've been reading, it seem the most popular organizations and committees are against it; NASW, AAP, etc. However, their reasons, examples, and statistic seem painfully dishonest.

How many of you here are Pro or Anti-spanking, and please explain why.

Within the context of Christianity, the corporal punishment debate centralizes on the meaning of Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (King James Version)

There are those who interpret this literally, and take it to mean that if a father (and not a mother, notice the gender-usage) fails to beat his children, the father does not love his children because he fails to impose and raise his children in a disciplined environment. The irony is that the fundamentalists tend not to make distinctions among beating sons and daughters, despite the fact that the first clause's gender specificity is their grounds for concluding that the father is to be the disciplinarian, and therefore the head of household -but that's another issue for another day. The actual meaning of that verse is that parents must teach their children right from wrong.

But the debate centralizes on a question of hermeneutics: is the bible to be literally interpreted, or not? The overreaching stupidity of that question centralizes on the simple fact that all modern versions of the bible are the product of human translation over time, which is why it's important to closely scrutinize the text and abstract principles from the word of God -and not on what could very likely is human error. Those who posit that, especially the NIV version of the bible is sufficient to literally interpret ignore the reality that the NIV was adapted from prior english language versions, which were translated from greek and latin, which were subject to the interpretational whims of perfectly fallible human beings through time and space. Said as clearly as possible, the only text we have access to is something that's inexorably tainted by an inexorably human stain. So, while God is perfect, without flaw and omnipotent, men are none of those things -but the text we read in the bible could only be literally interpreted if men were themselves without flaw -but the fundamentalists are too myopic and inept to recognize that.

Consequently, we have a debate between those who think that beating their children is commanded by the Christian God and those who, rather than taking issue with the premise of the debate, want to argue on the other side that the "fundamentalists" are "backwards mouth breathing neanderthals" (I only exaggerate a bit) -and this question goes on, while the essential problem that inculcates this (manifestly absurd) issue remains unaddressed. And yet, whenever anyone actually takes the time to talk about why, more or less, both sides are incoherent, both sides get "testy" because of their personal stake in "winning" the argument, rather than being right.

The point of the verse is to stress the necessity of parents teaching children right from wrong. The point is not a divine instruction to beat thy offspring.


Concerning this statement: "all modern versions of the bible are the product of human translation over time, which is why it's important to closely scrutinize the text and abstract principles from the word of God -and not on what could very likely is human error. Those who posit that, especially the NIV version of the bible is sufficient to literally interpret ignore the reality that the NIV was adapted from prior english language versions, which were translated from greek and latin, which were subject to the interpretational whims of perfectly fallible human beings through time and space." (Bolded emphasis mine)

Where in the world did you come up with that? That seems to me to be a dangerous position. (I do not care for the NIV at all, but not for those reasons. I would never recommend its use. It is a biased translation, twisted where possible into conformity with a certain belief system.) You are making it sound as if the Greek manuscripts represent the Word of God, but in the process of translating into English, we lose it.

That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that the fact that scripture has been translated numerous times over the millennia by numerous different people rules out the possibility of their being infallible, because the translators were human (and fallible). That doesn't render the scripture we have now meaningless or incoherent, though. It only stresses the necessity of our carefully considering the scripture, and not interpreting everything literally.

The scriptures were not infallible when they were written. I know it's a technicality, but the scriptures were/are inerrant. Our goal is to take a Greek text and translate it as close to inerrant as possible, i. e. as accurate as possible. An infallible translation, like an infallible interpretation, would be a characteristic of deity - not man.

Of course we must pay extra close attention to the translation we are using, and we want one that is the most accurate that we can find. Literal versus figurative is a whole different subject. That's usually a function of common sense.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."