WHY IS THE DEBATE ON SPANKING SILLY? — UPDATE

Children’s Games Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526/1530–1569) (explanation here)
Children’s Games by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526/1530–1569) (explanation here)

UPDATEvioletwisp has just posted evidence for the benefits of spanking. Supposedly, we Christians have not provided any evident for benefits of spanking. Since I never could figure out exactly what it was, I could say the same about ‘s “technique”. I did not even think to ask for evidence. Evidence of what?

However, that’s not why I gave up debating the issue with her.  My motivation was more along these lines. Imagine you are dealing with an ISIS terrorist, and that terrorist asks you to justify your continued existence.

Here is where is coming from. Here is her reply to my comment here.

violetwisp on February 12, 2017 at 10:41 am said:

“she disapproves of punishing children when they do wrong”
Absolutely! It’s all about setting good examples and providing reasons for behaving in a socialised manner that takes other people’s feelings into consideration. Children aren’t ‘bad’, they’re just clueless about social norms until they’re sufficiently exposed to them, and they have some very basic needs (food, rest, comfort) that people tend to overlook before they launch into counter-productive disciplining. And this is one of the reasons I can never accept the Christian god in the Bible – the caricature of this omniscient being punishing its puny creation is disgusting.

is not an ISIS terrorist, but obviously does not think highly of Christianity. I think it suffices to say she prefers Christians were extinct. There is no point in debating your right to exist and that’s the debate wants.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST

Do you want to get an inkling of the sheer silliness of some people’s priorities? May I suggest you read some of the comments to this post:  punishing children. Because the conversation is so shallow, I have given up commenting.

Our ancestors struggled to survive. Pain was unavoidable, but we are so modern. For us spanking is suppose to be a grand tragedy, but it really isn’t. We still cannot completely avoid pain.

  • There is still physical pain. Many a cancer patient can tell you about that, and bullies still beat up their classmates.
  • There is emotional pain. Failed dreams. Rejection. A death in the family.

What is different from the past? I am not certain anything really is different. I just know people who insist upon making an issue of spanking apparently don’t have anything better to do.

What follows are some are some of the comments from punishing children.

So My Neighbor Spanks His Child? That’s A Problem?

violetwisp on February 17, 2017 at 6:57 pm said:

“Some how, some way parents must teach a child to control that belief, that pride in self. More often than not before a child can learn the rewards of loving someone, that child must learn the consequences of arrogance the hard way.”

Where’s the ‘must’? Tildeb and Barry, quite calmly, have explained to you how gentle, reasonable techniques have more positive effects on children. If you take issue with that, show me somewhere (there must be somewhere, right?) that can demonstrate the positive effects of parenting with violence (or physical discipline, if you prefer). I can’t find any.

  • @violetwisp

    What Tildeb’s and Barry’s explanation comes down to is that they have different ways of punishing a disobedient child. The notion that we can always reason with a wilful two-year old is just silly. Moreover, as you suggested your post, “punishing children”, ANY form of punishment can be taken to an extreme.

    The Bible doesn’t actually say we have to spank a child, and that is not really the issue. What the Bible says is that if we punish a child because we love that child and want them to behave, that child will survive and be better off for it.

    What you are preoccupied with is making other parents raise their children your way. Not my problem.

    Spanking a child is not child abuse. Child neglect — not teaching a child to behave — is child abuse. Yet silly people get all worked up about spanking. That’s mostly just because a few people lose it, and the bruises and broken bones are obvious. Newspapers can get vivid photos, and the virtue signalers can tell us how they would never do that.
    🙄

    I suppose stupid sadists also beat kids half to death, but abuse has many other, more subtle forms.

    Neglect, I suspect is a more common problem. Even if we feed, cloth, and shelter a child, we still neglect that child if we don’t teach that child self-discipline. Until we learn self-discipline, we are not prepared for life.

Setting The Threshold Way Too Low

violetwisp on February 17, 2017 at 9:28 pm said:

This is a real problem. I hate seeing children needlessly suffering. There’s simply no reason to approach parenting with any form of violence.

  • When people speak of virtue signaling and a bleeding heart, what are they talking about? It is about setting the threshold for suffering so low it is an insult to those who actually are suffering.

    You want to understand pain? Then study the matter. Imagine being skinned alive. Then compare that to a spanking.

So what is the point of this post? Is it about spanking? No. It is about priorities. People were spanking their children long before recorded history. That does not make it right, but spanking works well. Perfectly? No. For example, as an child grows older spanking becomes a greater offense to his or her dignity, and we are big into self-esteem these days. Hence, spanking is not as popular as once was.  Still, children need to be disciplined.

So what is the point of this post? If you are represented by a politician who advocates a complete ban of spanking, even within the privacy of your neighbors’ homes, you have my sincere pity. That man has no sense of proportion. What he wants is simply a waste of government resources and a good example of why government should not be in the businesses of educating our children. Do we need such busybodies sticking their noses into our lives and interfering with how we raise our children? No.

When we vote, we need to vote for someone who can tell the difference between a real crime and a difference of opinion that offends his ever so superior sensibilities.

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “WHY IS THE DEBATE ON SPANKING SILLY? — UPDATE

  1. I’ve managed to resolve the entire debate, Tom. We just start spanking adults ,especially busybodies, those who waste peoples money, and those who smash people’s car windows and call it “a protest.” Pretty much anybody acting like a two year old that is not a two year old.

    I don’t think it’s harsh at all, it’s for the collective good. We’ll have the whole country back on track in no time. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @insanitybytes22

      😆

      Maybe if we brought flogging back. Smashing people’s car windows at least deserves jail time, but it more expensive keeping folks locked up. It is also more cruel to keep people locked up. In jail ad actors have to keep each other company.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Just wondering if you’d given any thought to my unanswered question from the previous post:

    “Okay Tom, let’s think of it like this. You say that smacking children and punishing them worked for you. I’m telling you that not smacking mine, or punishing them, is working for me. If you met my children I’m quite sure you find them well-behaved, thoughtful, helpful and considerate towards others. Assuming this is the case, which path do you think is most sensible? If both sets of kids turn out well (albeit mine are only 5 and 2 at this point) is it best to hit them and make them cry to achieve this, or is it best to rely on gentle reasoning and positive role-models?”

    Like

    1. Because the conversation is so shallow, I have given up commenting on that subject. This post is about misplaced priorities. You think whatever you are doing works for you? You are the one that has to live with it. So long as no one can show you are not permanently harming your child, I have no interest in seeing someone take your child from you. That kind of harm is where your hyperventilated rhetoric leads, and that just for spanking a child for misbehaving.

      Like

    2. Oh my goodness. I’ve just spent two days being lectured to about child rearing by someone with a 2 and a 5 year-old. I actually hadn’t realized this fact.

      I’ve raised six children and the oldest is 31.

      I really should have asked; it’s my own fault for absolutely wasting my time! My tack would have been so different!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Madblog, you didn’t realise this because you don’t read posts or comments before you dive in with your wayward opinion. I could have no children at all and still have a perfectly valid opinion from the literature and from sensible role-models like Tildeb and Barry. Applying physical pain under the guise of ‘discipline’ is harmful. You still haven’t produced a shred of information (expert analysis or even anecdotal) that explains why you think children need negative reinforcement for challenging behaviour. The fact that you had a self-declared nightmare with your now-grown children makes you think you are ‘superior’, the fact you think your argument could have been different, just shows how far removed from reality you like to keep yourself.

        Like

        1. As usual, you have taken my words and intent to mean something other than what I’ve said, added your own melodramatic context, turned it into insult, and run with it.
          I did not inform you of my parenting history because it made me “superior.” You are a real nice person, aren’t you?
          My experience raising my children was not a nightmare; it was a joy. The fact that you don’t yet understand how I could mean this is indicative of your shallow depth here.
          You misunderstood my reason for telling you about it. My point was that the kind of simplistic talk-therapy theory you and td were promoting is not a magic wand; it is not a formula (which was, I’m sorry, how it was being presented.) *You do this, and viola! A pleasant child results!*…Not to mention the effect of human nature which you deny, there are kids who would make mince-meat of your methods. There are people who may have been more challenged as parents than you will allow.
          If you had really been interested in generously enlightening us all, if you had had any compassionate motives, especially since you think I had a nightmare, your answer to my history would have been one of sympathy and support.

          I do not think that children need “negative reinforcement.” I know that all human beings who still need to learn to govern themselves need a line. They need to know that there IS a line they may not cross On the other side of the line are things like: running out into the street, hitting your sibling, intentionally lying. Things which the child must know are not tolerated. (There are lots of negotiable items on the other side of the line, of course.) And the reason they are not tolerated, when the child is very young, is that mommy does not tolerate it.(Reasons come later, when the child is able to understand and has some self-control.)
          Mommy must follow through and not tolerate it, too, because mommy will be tested on this. Now, how we all choose to communicate that some things will not be tolerated in various ways. But to teach a child that *this* isn’t tolerated, then to tolerate it after all, is to fail your child.

          You would be more persuasive if your thinking wasn’t so rigidly ruled by “us/them;” if you could respect the experiences of those with whom you speak, and especially if you showed some sympathy or at least some tact which would cover up its absence.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “They need to know that there IS a line they may not cross On the other side of the line are things like: running out into the street, hitting your sibling, intentionally lying. Things which the child must know are not tolerated. (There are lots of negotiable items on the other side of the line, of course.) And the reason they are not tolerated, when the child is very young, is that mommy does not tolerate it.(Reasons come later, when the child is able to understand and has some self-control.)
          Mommy must follow through and not tolerate it, too, because mommy will be tested on this. Now, how we all choose to communicate that some things will not be tolerated in various ways. ”

          We are in agreement. I think it’s possible to achieve all this without using physical punishment. What you seem to be suggesting is that some children will ‘need’ it or they will never follow simple instructions?

          I also agree I may have project an us/them mentality on this subject. As parents, the idea of people mistreating children can make us all upset. What I sense here is that many of Tom’s readers think a child is mistreated if they aren’t subject to physical punishment as a form of discipline. Obviously this infuriates me as it runs contrary to the unanimous recommendations of experts across the professions – and runs the risk of encouraging parents to bring real harm to children.

          Like

        3. Thank you for ackowledging your attitude….There is no unanimous opinion on this or anything else. I will not give any more time to this debate; I will not be finding sources.

          There endeth my participation here. But first I’d like to point out the reason this debate is so disturbing.My original objection was that you were publicly shaming a woman you didn’t know for an incident you knew very little about, then proceeding to condemn her character, her parenting, her motives, her belief system. Your answer, and I believe Carmen’s, was that CT put it on the web, so it was fair game to malign this woman

          Do you not find that disturbing? Have we come to the point where any idbit of personal information we may let slip becomes our detractor’s fair prize, to make of it what he will; and have we decided that it is moral and right to do so? I shudder at the death of civil discourse and the more noble communication. Aren’t we better than this?

          In closing for good, I would like to apologize because I have indulged in some less-than-kind attitudes here as well, and I do know better. I should have modeled better behavior myself.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. “My original objection was that you were publicly shaming a woman you didn’t know for an incident you knew very little about, then proceeding to condemn her character, her parenting, her motives, her belief system.”

          Madblog, you either don’t read before you comment or you have a terrible memory. The whole point of my post was to discuss if it’s appropriate to use physical pain on children as a form of punishment. I stated on numerous occasions that I don’t judge the the mother in Tom’s freely shared example. And I also offered to take out reference to his name.

          “I’m well acquainted with the pressures of caring for more than one young child at the same time and have made some terrible decisions myself when facing challenging behaviour.”

          “I don’t blame or judge Tom’s wife, above. She was doing what she had to do in the midst of baby-plus-toddler mayhem. As parents we sometimes don’t have time to think about why a child is doing something, but need to make sure everyone is safe first.”

          From my comments:
          “I know what it’s like to be sleep deprived looking after two young children – I don’t blame or judge anyone for anything they do, seriously. My point is that we don’t celebrate bad decisions.”

          ” If it offends his wife (who had no say in this, I guess, and may be embarrassed by it) I’ll remove the links to his name.”

          Like

        5. @madblog

          What makes a busybody a busybody? I can conjecture, but that’s another subject. The point of this post is it does not do much good to debate someone when their goal is to make you do things their way, and that’s the only alternative they will accept.

          When the pretext for violetwisp’s argument is flawed from the get-go, spanking is child abuse, what is there that needs to be debated?

          Like

        6. Madblog, there’s not reading every word in the comments, and being totally detached from a conversation you seem to be having. You’re replying to me here but clearly not reading what I’m saying most of the time. It’s a shame because it should be a useful conversation for everyone.

          Like

  3. these sorts of discourse seem so empty really …here you offer a lesson in pain, experience, growth, life, consequence, learning , responsibility and prospering…and
    sadly you are met with an esoteric hop down the bunny hole…

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m not convinced CT that the debate on ‘spanking’ is silly, albeit there are silly reasons to defend or promote such instruction.

    But the thought occurred to me that they who make no distinction between man and dog, will teach their dogs in ways that they call instructing children criminal.

    A dog may be bribed with a biscuit to sit, or the dog may be physically taught that disobedience is unacceptable; so a parent may have to ‘bribe’ their child to behave, or understand that there are consequences for waywardness that are more valuable than a dog obeying. It is better not to engage bribery as a form of learning.

    Ah, but here is the rub. Some parents detest the word ‘obedience,’ as if sitting under authority is a bad thing, yet that is exactly what dogs have learned, by bribery or otherwise, that to be a ‘good’ dog, is one that obeys.

    Another thing. Some have used the word ‘violence’ in relation to chastisement, and this is why the rod is thought to be archaic. Chastisement when done properly is to instruct and restore a relationship. God also chastises, and it is not done with violence, nor is it punitive. It is instruction, with lasting benefits.

    I knew a kid who felt the rod for almost burning his house down. No amount of sitting in a time out corner could have instructed the respect for matches other than a well timed and loving bottom being attended to. Rest assured, that foolishness never appeared again.

    Also, chastisement is never violent. A person ‘smacking’ their kids around knows very little of training it appears. But are not children more valuable than dogs……..

    Nice effort in the post here btw, putting things together.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @ColorStorm

      Thank you, and thanks for a well-considered comment.

      As you say, there is merit in the discussion of how to raise a child and the role of punishment, but who is on the other side of the discussion matters too.

      Why would someone use the word “violent” to describe an ordinary spanking? When the Iraqis executed that mass murderer Saddam Hussein, how many described the execution as violent?

      When the topic of spanking is just used by its opponents to attack Christianity and for virtual signaling, what is the point in continuing the discussion? Don’t we lend credence to these opponents by appearing to take their arguments seriously? When people are guided by hatred, we must be careful our debate with them does give their words authority or fuels our own fury.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s what i’m talkin’ about. 😉

        Worth highlighting to be sure the ‘violence’ idea. Equating a bum rap…….with a terrorist, is well……..no further comment necessary.

        Reminds me of the merry-go-round supposed argument of a world with no God, as if by more words and repeating the same thing, there is credibility in a creation without a Creator.

        No. No credibility. Yesterday, today, or forever.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Why use ‘violent’? Consult a dictionary: behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

        Is smacking not behaviour involving physical force intending to hurt small children? Don’t shy away from what it is, even if you believe the end result justifies the means.

        Like

        1. Sorry Violet, but your loose and WRONG interpretation of chastening, is why you are putting ‘discipline’ in the same sentence with ‘violence.’

          Intended to hurt, damage, or kill? Seriously? Can you not see that you are connecting rotten fruit (killing) to a good tree (discipline)? Huge mistake.

          You want the dictionary? How about the father of words, the incomparable Noah Webster, who has no equal in the correct usage and meaning of words, which by the way, as far as chastening, agrees with scripture.

          ‘chastise:’ To correct by punishment; to inflict pain upon for the purpose of reclaiming………..’

          Did you catch that? For the purpose of reclaiming, something totally foreign to your idea of violence or killing.

          Does this sound like wholesale murder or abuse? Maybe you need to understand the nature of pain, that from day one, you were brought into the world via the pain of your mother. Dare you say her ‘chastisement’ was bad, evil, unnecessary, and that she would have done away with you to avoid her pain?

          No violet, not all pain is evil. Your connection with pain and ‘violence’ says enough. True chastisement is good, useful, full of instruction, and good parents know the difference between your ‘smacking’ and when necessary, administering the board of education.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. For the purpose of restoring the right relationship.

          It’s like weeding the garden as it were. But you didn’t think childbirth was a good example that not all pain is bad?

          Like

        3. The appropriate analogy would be weeding the garden to make way for worse weeds and at risk of damaging the plant. Look at the facts about corporal punishment, from professionals, don’t rely on half-truths from people who believe their god thinks it’s good to beat with rods.

          Like

        4. Her ya go violet.

          Let’s leave God out of your argument against that wonderful tool aka chastisement.

          Did you miss the part about authority? Perhaps your ‘professional’ friends will be willing to justify the ransacking and violence done by ‘baby adults’ who were never told ‘no’ a day in their lives, who have no clue what authority means, who are spoiled brats with no sense of right and wrong, and probably have never understood the benefits of gardening.

          And stop using the word ‘beat,’ ‘violence,’ and ‘smacking,’ as it is an insult to that wonderful word: chastisement.

          Like

        5. I referred you to Mr.Webster. Please do not pretend to know more of his dictionary, and his correct usage of the word.

          Your continual usage of the word ‘violence’ is fast becoming tiresome wisp.

          Liked by 1 person

        6. @violetwisp

          Ever heard of violent language? Words are weapons. You are hurting my feelings.
          😦

          I am 65 years old. In all the decades I have lived, I have never heard of anyone speak of a spanking as “violent” punishment. I have heart of people beating their children, but that is not a spanking.

          So back to the subject of this post. When logic does not work, conniving, dishonorable people play word games. They fix words with negative connotations on their opponents. Then they fix words with favorable connotations upon their cause and themselves. Finally, they induce the people on their side to hate the opposition. People do love to hate people who don’t think like them, but the excuses are always pretty lame. Often just a bunch of big lies.

          You are not a fool. We already know your motive. You hate the God of the Bible. What won’t you do to act upon that hatred? Can you actually justify such behavior logically? Would it not be better step back and fix yourself before you castigate others who just happen to be Christians?

          Liked by 1 person

        7. Tom, I would have the same discussion with anyone who encouraged others to use physical punishment on children. I expect the difference is that non-believers might be more inclined to view the evidence of professionals as something worth consulting. The problem here seems to be that the Bible clearly encourages it, and you therefore feel that any facts to the contrary must be lies. Most Christians are now over the idea of owning slaves, in spite of what’s in the Bible, I’m sure you can get over the idea of hitting children.

          Like

        8. @violetwisp

          I missed this one. Comparing slavery with spanking. Calling spanking hitting children. What did I say earlier about big lies.

          Yes. Christians got over slavery. That practice is so old we don’t know who to credit with its invention. We do know who to credit with its aboliton in in the West. I suppose you would argue about that too.
          🙂

          What you are doing really is not rational. Yet ironically, I suspect you pride yourself on being rational. Pride can quite easily delude us.

          Like

        9. Tom, what about spanking does not involve hitting children? It’s a worry you can imagine that to be a lie.

          Christians didn’t invent slavery but they’re happy to imagine a benevolent god invented rules for how to do it well, involving beating until almost dead, but not quite.

          Like

  5. Dr. Spock gets a bum rap sometimes, pun intended, but he actually began a conversation about emotional abuse, about the “violence” of unaddressed conflict, resentment. He actually spoke of a swat as a a way to clear the air between parent and child, as something quite natural you see reflected out in nature. Dogs for example will snap at their puppies, and pick them up by the scruff of their neck and move them. To the uniformed this would appear somewhat “violent,” when in fact a good mama dog is simply transporting her puppies the way they were designed to be transported.

    Dr Spock’s point was that the more we stray from what is natural and instinctual and interfere with that parent/child bond, the more damage we do. So a swat can be the simplest, most effective way to clear the air, whereas endless reasoning, perpetual lectures, emotional shaming, can actually begin to take on emotionally and psychologically abusive and violent overtones.

    I remember a woman once lecturing a child at the candy counter about the horrrors of gun violence, child labor, and starving kids in Africa, some pretty horrendous emotional baggage to be dumping on a small child all for the purpose of attempting to shame them into putting the candy back. A swat would have been much kinder. I mean, I was getting depressed, I can hardly imagine how that child felt.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @insanitybytes22

      I never studied Dr Spock’s ideas. At the time, I did not realize how much the press distorts what it reports.

      Sometimes I make the mistake of trying to reason with a child as if that child were a small adult. Why? I spend all day with adults. Speaking with adults is what I am in the habit of doing. Does not work well. A five-year is just not ready to accept the responsibilities and the perspective of a 30-year old adult.

      When our children were still small, my lady, on the other hand, would on occasion tried to reason with me the way one would a child. After talking with children, that was the mode my lady was in. In fairness, I can be a bit childish sometimes, but it still rubbed me the wrong way.

      We have to deal with another person where they are at, not where we wish the were. Even a two-year can grasp the implications of a spanking.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: evidence for the benefits of spanking | violetwisp

  7. Are you familiar with “To Train Up A Child” By Debi and Michael Pearl? It advocates “breaking a child’s will” and aiming for “first-time obedience”. Christianity also has the horror of those special homes that they used to send “extremely defiant” youth to – “Kidnapped for Christ” is a documentary about one such places that went out of the states to operate in ways that would be illegal in the states; many such homes in the states have been closed in recent decades. Christian discipline – at it’s worst – has been abusive and even fatal.

    Then there’s “regular” discipline, the way it’s always been done. The way that we were raised and we turned out to be perfectly decent people. It’s because this form of discipline is okay that people think that some degree of the other kind of discipline is alright – but that’s only because you don’t really know it’s going on and you don’t see it happening. That’s my worry that one makes the other even in some slight degree okay.

    Like

    1. @Jamie Carter

      No, I am not familiar with “To Train Up A Child” By Debi and Michael Pearl. So I have no reason to discuss the book.

      Are you familiar with the human race? Most of it consists of people who are not Christians. You are a member. So am I. All those people do some of the most stupid and hateful things. Nevertheless, Jesus died for all of us, even while we were sinners.

      The world before Jesus Christ came was a nasty place, and sometimes it still gets in a bad way. The 20th Century brought with it terrible wars, mostly because the people of Europe set Jesus Christ aside. Most of the Christians had grown use to the idea that religious warfare made no sense. Still, national rivalries existed. Ambitious men still sought power.

      Christians are not perfect, but we do have this injunction against murder. Yet because we remain human and live among other humans, we don’t always find way to maintain peace.

      I noticed you wrote a post recently called “A Sort of Love I Don’t Understand” (=> https://holdssway.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/a-sort-of-love-i-dont-understand/). If you don’t know what it means to love as a Christian, then you don’t understand Christianity. Because you paraphrase the Bible poorly, that is evident.

      You make it sound as if the Bible approves of slavery, for example. No, the Bible tells us to love our neighbor as our self. Who would make a slave of him or herself? We humans approve of enslaving other people. In fact, our ancestors could not imagine a society without slavery. Once Christians saw that possibility (a functioning society without slaves), Christian nations banned slavery.

      More serious is this observation.

      Dying to self is not trying to live unselfishly, it’s a teaching that you put yourself last.

      No, we don’t put our self last. The teaching you are referring to require us to put God — Jesus Christ — first (https://www.gotquestions.org/dying-to-self.html). The command is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. We are to love our neighbor as we love our self. We serve Jesus by being servants to each other. We work to spread His Gospel and lead each other to Him.

      Think about who God is, the infinite Being who is the Creator. If we put our trust in Him and serve Him, do we really have anything to lose? Didn’t God give you everything you have?

      True humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less. ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

      All of us seek fulfillment in some form. We all need a purpose for living. Jesus provided us the best purpose we could possibly have. Nonetheless, we have have to choose. Will I put God first in my life or my self first?

      What about marital love? Marriage provides us the opportunity to love as Jesus loves us. Christianity puts the onus on the man.

      Ephesians 5:25-29 New King James Version (NKJV)

      25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

      No woman should submit (give herself) to a man who does not love her intensely. Only then can the two become one.

      Like

      1. “To Train a Child” is a Biblically-based discipline method, it advocates breaking a child’s will, if spanking them once doesn’t yield the proper submissive behavior, the book advocates you beat them as many times as it takes. It suggest using different attitude adjusters depending on what effect you want to elicit – including the quarter inch thick plumbing pipe called the “Rod of Reproof” (Prov. 29:15). It tells it’s readers to demand first-time obedience and to punish any child who doesn’t do what they’re told the first time they are told to do it. Three parents have applied it’s advice in such a way that it proved fatal to their children. How many children being disciplined to death will it take before something is unacceptable? If not three, then how many?

        Like

        1. @Jamie Carter

          What makes you think I want to argue with you about a book I know nothing about?

          You realize there con-men who call people claiming to be IRS agents? These con-men cheat people out of their money. I have not heard anyone blaming the IRS. Only a fool would do that.

          As I said, you don’t understand the Bible. I wrote this post earlier when violetwisp start posting her nonsense. => https://citizentom.com/2017/02/15/ambushed-again-sigh/.

          Here is a comment I got.

          atimetoshare.me

          The rod was also used by the shepherd to fend off danger and to guide his flock. Both of which we need to do with our children. Unfortunately our world would rather let their kids fend for themselves and we know the results of that.

          The rod is a symbol. We shepherd our children. The shepherd who does not guide his flock loses it.

          The Romans accused Christians of cannibalism because we eat the body and blood of Christ. You know how stupid that charge is? Yet there were people who believed it.

          We Christians spank our children occasionally. Most people, including Christians, don’t like spanking their children. So most people use other forms of discipline. Nobody except some silly fool would accuse Christians of using plumbing pipes. In fact, the reason you find the idea abhorrent is that you live in a nation with a Christian heritage. It is because of Christianity you find the idea abhorrent. Yet here you are spouting that nonsense. Why don’t you know any better? A thoroughly secular education, perhaps?

          Like

        2. If we were *that* Christian of a nation, we’d put a priority on using it as a last resort and hoping that non-violent methods work – or at least, they’d be given a chance to work. Spanking shouldn’t be a first resort.

          I keep on thinking about how we often tell kids that those who pick on you / hit you do so because they like you. I wonder who gave them that idea? Perhaps parents who love their children but also hurt them in order to keep their behavior in line. Surely we can find some other way of expressing displeasure and love than harming others.

          Like

        3. @Jamie Carter

          If we not sinners I would not have people coming to my blog trying to demonize Christians just because the Bible tells parents to take responsibility for the upbringing of their children.

          Before you complain about the speck in my eye, consider the plank in your own.

          Do you want to understand the importance of a Christian marriage? Do you want to understand the need for love and proper discipline? Read about the life of King David.

          Because he had so many wives and children from multiple wives, David’s children treated each other as rivals (as no doubt their mothers treated each other). Eventually one of David’s children treated King David as a rival. And so there was war.

          Our children learn to love us because we love them. If we love them, then we insist they learn to do what is right.

          Like

        4. Did you read the story about what happened to David’s daughter, Tamar? What did David do? Nothing. Actually, part of the verse was deleted because some translations say: “But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth. But he would not grieve the soul of Amnon his son, for he loved him because he was his first-born.'”
          There’s nothing quite like deleting sections out of the Bible to change how a story goes.

          Like

        5. @Jamie Carter

          I am not certain why you think that addition makes much difference. Even if it belongs there, it is what David thought, not God.

          If you look at what happened afterwards, King David paid a bitter price. Here is a comparison of different Bible translations.
          => http://biblehub.com/2_samuel/13-21.htm

          The Hebrew text is the most authoritative. That is why most versions don’t include the additional text. The additional text also read like a scribe’s addition, something that that scribe probably added as a personal note. Shrug. I think I will go with the Hebrew version.

          Here is the commentary on that verse from my Bible.

          David was very angry at Amnon’s rape of Tamar, but his own sin immobilized him from confronting his son. Consequently, he allowed the matter to pass by. Meanwhile, Absalom plotted to avenge his sister’s rape.

          Like

      2. I thought a bit more on what you had to say about “A Sort of Love I Don’t Understand” and I thought I’d clarify a few points for you:

        I only talked about slaves in the context of the household codes; written according to their ancient culture and laws – does it not follow that likewise their marriages would be also written according to their ancient culture and laws? Sames goes for the instructions about children – which, by the way, doesn’t simply refer to toddlers – but also fully grown adult children, single daughters, married sons, and daughters-in-law as well – are all included in the instruction. Considering that children were considered adults around the ages of twelve and thirteen – it makes sense that Paul would adress them and isn’t only talking about little children. I didn’t suggest that God approves or disapproves – I just said that’s how it was written.

        There is some question as to whether or not Christians perpetuated slavery because it was Biblical. Many pastors have delivered sermons about how masters ought to treat their slaves based on the Bible’s instructions. Perhaps that’s why it took so very long for “Christians to see the possibility that slavery was no longer needed” and write laws against them – even so, slavery still exists to this day.

        When I was writing of the teaching of dying to self, I was thinking of the countless women who slowly kill themsleves as they give beyond their means in an effort to fulfill that obligation. Some kill their own spirit because they have been taught they can’t insert themselves by offering ideas or opinions. Some kill themselves by putting their own needs – and their very health – last. They don’t seek help when they need it and it is all too often too late to interveine when things do finally get that bad. As I said, anyone who doesn’t take care of herself, cannot care for others. Sure, some guys do that, too – but it’s not as common among men as it is women.

        This love, is a love of structure and authority, not any kind of love based on compassion or feeling anything. Even marital love bows to the context of authority as a higher sort of love that’s superior to any emotional feeling of love. Anyone who doesn’t exist in a structure of authority doesn’t have all the pieces they need to be loved in this way. This is not the love of Jesus.

        Too many churches preach that young women should up and marry the men in their lives so that God will grant them true love later on. That’s a misuse of Scripture, a misuse that is the result of the idea that through authority and submission there is love as long as there is obedience. Most people can’t see that because they view the household codes – husbands and wives, fathers and children, masters and slaves – as the biblical ideal and as a foundation for love in the context of marriage, family, and community as one of authority and submission relationships. But Jesus didn’t come that we might have authority to the full and the best example of submission – the whole point of 1 Corinthians 13 isn’t authority and submission as the foundation or context for love to thrive. God may have authority, but authority in itself is not God; nor is everyone who has authority God. Authority is not the same thing as love.

        Like

        1. @Jamie Carter

          The Bible distinguishes clearly between history and direction. So we need to do our best to distinguish between the two.

          Understanding the Bible requires wisdom and prayer. Even so, Christians have disagreed over the meaning of some passages in the Bible since Jesus ascended back to heaven. Scripture records some of those disagreements in Acts.

          Why does the Old Testament provide rules for slavery? It is for much the same reason as it provides rules for divorce.

          Matthew 19:1-10 New King James Version (NKJV)
          Marriage and Divorce

          19 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

          3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

          4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

          7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

          8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

          10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

          As you can see, Jesus’ disciples discerned a problem, an inability to meet the standard Jesus presented to them. Yet few men and women can ignore their need to be close with someone of the opposite sex. So few choose celibacy.

          The Old Testament provided the Hebrews structure and authority. Don’t we love such things? Don’t we want to know how to save ourselves, earn salvation? What the experience with the Old Testament proved is that even when we know the rules, we don’t have the capacity to obey them.

          You speak of countless women dying to self. I suppose you have had some kind of personal experience. Either your self or someone you know. I suppose it was not pleasant.

          Loving another person is difficult. To love is to suffer. Love involves is giving of ourselves to another, but none of us are easy to love. So when we love we invariably sacrifice our pride.

          How to we resolve the choices we must make for the sake of love? Pastors and teachers of the Word try to give us the best advice they have. Usually such advice is good, but sometimes it is not. I will just say this. We must keep in mind this one thing. There is only one authority that matters. God. God is love. God must be our first love. Him we must strive to please first. If we choose to do that which is not pleasing to our Creator, then we choose wrongly. Only when we please our Creator do we do what is right.

          Like

        2. I was referring to the New Testament rules about slavery – when you read the passages about husbands and wives; invaraibly in the section before or in the section after; there’s also a discussion about masters and slaves.
          In Matthew 19; Jesus was answering the question in the debate posed by the Rabbis Hilel and Shammai; whether or not God permits divorce for any reason – even being a bad cook. Delete the rabbis from the conversation and you miss the reason why it exists in the first place. Divirce was called “putting away”; men would marry, disqualify their wives, kick them out of the house, keep the dowry, and marry again. What God hated was that men would use women and toss them out of their lives, makin themselves rich and making women outcasts in the process. It was never God being angry about women – who often were helpless in that culture and had little choice buy to obey the men in their lives or else be left with nothing.
          Have you ever heard this conundrum of obedience? (1.) God wants women to submit to their husbands. (2) Husbands are not God. (3.) When Husbands and God Disagree; to whom does the woman owe her alliegance? The answer: Her husband. In obeying her husband, even though disobeying God, she’s pleasing God in that she is being obedient and He will therefore spare her the consequences of her sinful actions though she will still have to deal with the legal ramifications of what her husband ordered her to do. Isn’t that twisted? How is that right?

          Like

        3. @Jamie Carter

          Men love their wives enough to give their lives for them. Women submit to a loving husband in obedience to God, not their husbands. If a woman’s husband demands she does something sinful, that is not obedient to God. Don’t we still punish soldiers when their obey orders that violate the laws of war?

          Do we choose our spouses well? Do we have perfect people from whom we can choose? Are any of us perfect? Don’t we all sin?

          God does not see us as unequal. In heaven we will be like angels (Matthew 22:30). If a man abuses his wife, God will call him to account. Of course, if a woman abuses her husband….

          Like

  8. Pingback: The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing

  9. Pingback: The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing – Br Andrew's Muses

Comments are closed.