*sigh* Spanking...

[celestial]

Um... Hebrews is in the New Testament.

My bad! :oops: I guess the point I was trying to make, though, is that since spanking isn't discussed in the New Testament, why should you practice it? And it seems like "scourging" could really be anything, given the way that things are often translated differently. I'd need to see how it was translated from Greek to know what they were really talking about.

[thoughtful]

Sheep are... for lack of a better word stupid. You can use a rod or a stick to nudge them in the right direction

Heck, a steady gaze from a Border Collie can make them move or freeze! :lol:

[emmiedahl]

Well, I am not a Christian so I am allowed to say that Paul was a misogynist whose writings go against most of Jesus's own teachings. So I guess you will have to decide who to follow eventually. Most Christians choose Paul, unfortunately; I doubt that Christ would consider himself a Christian by today's terms.

You could also argue that this passage appears to be descriptive and not proscriptive--it seems to be describing a behavior but not holding that everyone should do it.

[thoughtful]

They might also consider that "Spare the rod and spoil the child" isn't directly God's words, it's Solomon's.

Actually, neither. That quote is from a rude, long poem by Samuel Butler:

http://www.exclassics.com/hudibras/hbintro.htm

[fundifugee]

What about the one that I quoted? Someone said maybe "scourging" doesn't really mean scourging, but that seems like a real stretch to me.

have mercy. do you scourge your children???? do you seriously think god says you should?

A scourge (from Italian scoriada, from Latin excoriare = "to flay" and corium = "skin") is a whip or lash, especially a multi-thong type used to inflict severe corporal punishment or self-mortification on the back.

[browncoatslytherin]

Actually, neither. That quote is from a rude, long poem by Samuel Butler:

http://www.exclassics.com/hudibras/hbintro.htm

the actual quote from the verse is this:

Proverbs 13:24

New International Version (NIV)

24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,

but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

but again, referring to the "rod" as the shepherd's rod, it doesn't necessarily mean to hit the child with it, when used with sheep it is used to gently direct them, so it should be used that way with children.

[emmiedahl]

And discipline is not spanking. Discipline is teaching them to do the right thing. Children won't learn reading from a parent who smacks them when they don't know their letters, but from systematically showing them letters, teaching them the sounds, reading them books, etc. The same principle can be applied to teaching morality: you can actively teach your children the "building blocks" of morality and then teach them to apply the moral lessons to their lives. As with reading, a good example goes a long way.

But we are talking to an anabaptist, someone from a community where child abuse, including whipping with whips and child rape, are par for the course.

[snarkbillie]

What about the one that I quoted? Someone said maybe "scourging" doesn't really mean scourging, but that seems like a real stretch to me.

I think it's probably better not to scourge people even if your particular reading of the Bible says it's okay. It's not okay. Okay? Okay.

[thoughtful]

the actual quote from the verse is this:

Proverbs 13:24

New International Version (NIV)

24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,

but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

That's the quote from Proverbs, I know.

But "spare the rod and spoil the child," which is what was mistakenly identified as being from the Bible earlier in the thread, is a separate quote, and it is from Butler's Hudibras -- I imagine he had Proverbs in mind when he wrote it.

I guess the confusion comes from their both saying something about sparing a rod.

[browncoatslytherin]

That's the quote from Proverbs, I know.

But "spare the rod and spoil the child," which is what was mistakenly identified as being from the Bible earlier in the thread, is a separate quote, and it is from Butler's Hudibras -- I imagine he had Proverbs in mind when he wrote it.

I guess the confusion comes from their both saying something about sparing a rod.

i know what you meant :) was just posting the actual verse for reference

[thoughtful]

i know what you meant :) was just posting the actual verse for reference

Ah -- got it.

[Happy_Anabaptist]

Well, I am not a Christian so I am allowed to say that Paul was a misogynist whose writings go against most of Jesus's own teachings. So I guess you will have to decide who to follow eventually. Most Christians choose Paul, unfortunately; I doubt that Christ would consider himself a Christian by today's terms.

You could also argue that this passage appears to be descriptive and not proscriptive--it seems to be describing a behavior but not holding that everyone should do it.

I believe that the teachings of Paul harmonize well with Jesus. It's just certain modern theologies built around Paul that don't take the full picture into account.

In any case though, I agree that passage isn't telling us we ought to scourge our sons. It's just comparing the chastisement we receive from God to something that people could relate to; the chastisement from their own fathers. But it does seem to assume that that chastisement is right and acceptable.

[celestial]

I think it's probably better not to scourge people even if your particular reading of the Bible says it's okay. It's not okay. Okay? Okay.

Yeah, that. :roll: Many things that were "right and acceptable" 2,000 years ago are not so today. Thank goodness.

[emmiedahl]

HappyAnabaptist, Jesus and Paul contradict so often that it is more difficult to find areas in which they agree than areas in which they differ.

Contradictions, like on the coming of the Lord:

Jesus says in Luke 21:8: Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name saying "The time is at hand!" Do not go after them.

Paul says in Romans 13:12: The night is far gone, the day is at hand.

On God's Mercy:

Jesus says in Matthew 5:7: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Paul says in Romans 9: 15-16, 18: For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

On Justification:

Jesus says in Matthew 12:37: By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Paul says in Romans 3:28: For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

On Who Is Your Daddy:

Jesus says in Matthew 23:9: And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Paul says in 1Corinthians 4:15: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

On the Fate of the World Upon Judgment:

Jesus says in Matthew 24:35: Heaven and earth will pass away,

Paul says in Romans 8:21: ...because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.

On Obeying Jewish Law:

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-18:Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Paul says in Romans 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.

I could go on and on. Like I said, you have to decide who to follow, and obviously you choose the meaner and less merciful of the two.

[snarkbillie]

I believe that the teachings of Paul harmonize well with Jesus. It's just certain modern theologies built around Paul that don't take the full picture into account.

In any case though, I agree that passage isn't telling us we ought to scourge our sons. It's just comparing the chastisement we receive from God to something that people could relate to; the chastisement from their own fathers. But it does seem to assume that that chastisement is right and acceptable.

Lets figure out what word they translated into "chastisement" then.

[emmiedahl]

As far as I could tell here, it means "to flog" http://scripturetext.com/hebrews/12-6.htm which makes me think that this is a horrible verse to use as a child training guide. Surely, HA, you do not intend to flog your children. Tell me this is not true.

[Happy_Anabaptist]

As far as I could tell here, it means "to flog" http://scripturetext.com/hebrews/12-6.htm which makes me think that this is a horrible verse to use as a child training guide. Surely, HA, you do not intend to flog your children. Tell me this is not true.

No... scourging/flogging does seem a little extreme, doesn't it? :shock:

For "chastening" it says this:

παιδευει verb - present active indicative - third person singular

paideuo pahee-dyoo'-o: to train up a child, i.e. educate, or (by implication), discipline (by punishment) -- chasten(-ise), instruct, learn, teach.

[VodouDoll]

I don't see how educate/discipline/instruct/learn/teach equals spank/hit/flog/smack/any other kind of physical punishment. It seems to me that education, discipline, instruction, learning, and teaching are done with words and/or by example.

[Happy_Anabaptist]

Reading it again I noticed something interesting. The only place scourging is mentioned is v. 6, where God chastens and scourges us. However vs. 9-10 that talks about the "fathers of our flesh," does not mention scourging at all, only correcting and chastening. And chastening doesn't seem to be physical.

9Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

[thoughtful]

I don't see how educate/discipline/instruct/learn/teach equals spank/hit/flog/smack/any other kind of physical punishment. It seems to me that education, discipline, instruction, learning, and teaching are done with words and/or by example.

Or, if it's physical, it involves holding, dancing, bouncing, hand-over-hand helping, tossing a ball, etc.

I never really get the imagined value for pain. I guess it comes from fear.

Even the "if your child runs into the street/reaches for the hot stove" scenario makes no sense to me, especially when people use it in an alarmist "I bet you'd do it then" manner.

In such a situation, I would grab fast - it's a matter of saving the child, not trying to punish.

I would consider the child having gotten that far a mistake on my part, and any pain I might cause by grabbing accidental.

But I would also have done all I could to prevent that situation ever happening, and teaching the behaviors I want (without thumping and whipping, thank you Michael Pearl).

When the child is old enough, I'd explain why we had always been so careful, and why stoves and traffic are dangerous.

Oh, and I have had lots of "I need you to stop instantly/pay attention/come here" games with my students, when I taught in a school setting, usually signaled by a nonverbal sound. A lot of teachers clap a rhythm, and the kids echo - a few reps and all are pleasantly tuned in. Some flip the lights on and off, or have a bell or toy that makes a silly sound. All are easily taught as a fun game.

Mike Pearl's letting them burn themselves while he says "hot!" (and then delighting in making them drop iced tea, years later) is not needed.