I just wanted to point out the "should we" links that I have added to the side bar.I do not claim to know all things in the Bible and these are some of the subjects that have come up in conversations that I have had. I place these things here fully understanding that these links follow my own presuppositions on the subjects.
Plus, it doesn't need mentioning, but these are placed here with the presupposition that the Bible is the ultimate authority to which we guide our lives with.
With that in mind, under those terms, can you debunk these claims...Biblically that is?
Should we Eat Unclean Foods?
Should we Gamble?
Should (can) we Smoke or is it a Sin?
Should we Spank our Children?
"Plus, it doesn't need mentioning, but these are placed here with the presupposition that the Bible is the ultimate authority to which we guide our lives with.
ReplyDelete"With that in mind, under those terms, can you debunk these claims...Biblically that is?"
Oh, yes, biblically, because we wouldn't want anything like observable evidence brought into play. I don't take the bible as any kind of authority. Indeed, my position on its ethics is anything but positive.
Well now, here is one preacher that tells it like the bible tells it:
ReplyDeleteThe Pastor Steve Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona
"The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers!
That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ... God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.
You know why God wanted the sodomites in the Old Testament to be killed? You know why every good king of Israel, the Bible says they got rid of the sodomites in the land? You know, the good kings that came after the bad kings who had allowed the sodomites to infest their land, they had infiltrated ... King Asa got the sodomites out of the land, Jehoshaphat exterminated the sodomites that were left from the days of his father, Asa. Why? Because the sodomites are infectious, that's why. Because they're not reproducers, that goes without saying, they're recruiters.
How are they multiplying? Do you not see that they're multiplying? Are you that blind? Have you noticed that there's more than there were last year and the year before, and the year before that? How are they multiplying? They're reproducing right? No, here's a biology lesson: they're not reproducers, they're recruiters! And you know who they're after? Your children. Remember you dropped off your kids last week? That's who they're after. You drop them off at some daycare, you drop them off at some school somewhere, you don't know where they're at. I'll tell you where they're at: they're being recruited by the sodomites. They're being molested by the sodomites. I can tell you so many stories about people that I know being molested and recruited by the sodomites.
They recruit through rape. They recruit through molestation. They recruit through violation. They are infecting our society. They are spreading their disease. It's not a physical disease, it's a sin disease, it's a wicked, filthy sin disease and it's spreading on a rampage. Can't you see that it's spreading on a rampage? I mean, can you not see that? Can you not see that it's just exploding in growth? Why? Because each sodomite recruits far more than one other sodomite because his whole life is about recruiting other sodomites, his whole life is about violating and hurting people and molesting 'em."
This is not chattahbox.com froggie
ReplyDeleteI should delete that garbage. First tell me what Steve Anderson has to do with my post?
By the way Dan. I know you beat your kids. You've admitted that.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is the one and only reason that I actually despise you and all you stand for. You are a vile and pitiful person.
You are a fool and a child abuser.
You think it's okay to physically abuse children? I don't care what the Bible says, that's not cool.
ReplyDeleteYou're a monster.
First of all Froggie answer my question and second you, and your now cheerleader Monkey, are throwing harsh terms.
ReplyDeleteI do not beat my kids, I do not physically abuse my children, I lovingly correct them. There is a huge difference.
I chastise them if they disobey a direct order or harm another child or things of that nature. That is not, by law, constituted as abuse. You are not fooling anyone by your claims. Trying to pigeon hole me as an abuser is a pointless endeavor. Did you ever think that, if there is a God, it is the atheists abusing and indoctrinating children to not believe in a God? They are "trying" to send children to hell.
Just Google "self esteem movement" to see what kind of kids you may be raising. pshaw.
Now Froggie, tell me what Steve Anderson has to do with my post?
Dan, do you realize that by not teaching your children to pray five times a day facing Mecca and accepting Muhammed as God's prophet you are condemning them to Hell? This could be seen as a form of child abuse.
ReplyDeleteDan Said,"Did you ever think that, if there is a God, it is the atheists abusing and indoctrinating children to not believe in a God?"
ReplyDeleteDan, you're assuming that Atheists do the same as theists. I know of no Atheist yet that is my friend, or that I met that is indoctrinating their children into being and Atheist. All that I am aware of are dealing with it much like how they deal with their political affiliations. They are making sure their children are getting a good education and letting the kids decide if they are believers in a deity or not when they are old enough to make that decision.
You on the other hand appear to be indoctrinating them into your particular belief system. I also would assume you are scare mongering them, much like I often see you do on your blog.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan,
ReplyDelete"I do not beat my kids, I do not physically abuse my children, I lovingly correct them. There is a huge difference."
So, what is it that you call "lovingly corecting your children?"
Spanking them with your hand? Whacking them on the back with a rod as your verses recommend?
What happens when they have had enough of this "loving corrections?"
Do you escalate?
One of your verses doesn't even specify children:
"13In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding."
Who is that intended for? Your wife? Me? Try it.
"3A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back."
Who is this for? Your co-workers? The guy that fixes your toilet?
What does Steve Anderson have to do with your post? I'll tell ya what. You try to couch these vile verses in euphimisms and he's got the balls to tell it like the bible tells it.
"I do not beat my kids,.."
Just what is it you do then?
You are gonna be a sorry son of a bitch at some point. I guarantee.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Just Google "self esteem movement" to see what kind of kids you may be raising. pshaw."
That crap is not what I subscribe to. Self esteem comes from kids being taught how to make good decisions and being taught that they are totally responsible for their choices and actions. You know this because we have disussed it before, That self esteem crap is nonesense.
"and see what kind of kids you might be raising."
I'm not raising any kids presently. I sent my youngest child, our youngest son to college on Saturday and I am totally confident that he knows how to handle himself in any eventuality.
I have five grown vital kids out there happy, healthy and contributing positively to society. They all have more than their share of self esteem and we never laid a hand on those kids.
Your need to "correct" (spank) your kids is evidence that you do not posess decent parenting skills.
I am assuming that these "corrections" include the imposition of pain, No?
Spanking them with your hand?
ReplyDeleteNo froggie if you understood the Bible your hands are for hugging your kids, not striking them.
Do you escalate?
Nope, no need to. Continual punching, slapping, and backhanding faces might be considered abuse by many, even myself. A good indication that you may be doing something wrong is if you go to hug your kids and they flinch. I assume that may be one of the reasons God placed so much flesh on the backside, for the purpose of correcting and to protect from overzealous, novice, parents.
God's wisdom is so advanced then ours that He knew to instruct us to spank with a stick instead of our hands. By the mere sight of the stick the child understands and does the right thing, most of the time.
You might want to review the past post about being evil. Left unchecked, as possibly in your home, the results could be horrible.
Also, encouragement of bad behavior, or not correcting evil behavior, is a road to raising a sociopath. I believe that many sociopaths (even gang members), unafraid of consequences, along with additional factors, are raised with little or no punishment from the parent(s).
Your indifference to the welfare of children is sad and dangerous. How do you go about life not guiding your children to what is right and wrong?
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteYou commented before I finished
I have five grown vital kids out there happy, healthy and contributing positively to society. They all have more than their share of self esteem and we never laid a hand on those kids.
OK, out of those 5 children of yours, how many are dedicated Christians?
Any?
Imposition of pain? In accordance to the Bible, Yes, but not always. Positive and negative reinforcement are both reinforcement of the desired behavior.
Dan, the only abuse being done is by you - both physical and mental. Don't kid yourself, atheists don't indoctrinate their kids into a cult, and that's more than I can say about you.
ReplyDeleteYes, Dan, your narrow-minded, literal interpretation of Christianity is very cult-like.
The only difference between a cult and a religion is volume, volume, volume. And you Dan, are in a very small minority.
"A good indication that you may be doing something wrong is if you go to hug your kids and they flinch."
ReplyDeleteIf that is your measure of being a good father then I hope the best for you. I have never, ever heard such a pathetic statement in all my days.
I rest my case and I can will not comment here in the near future. I am sadended to my core by this.
Never in my upbringing or in my family have I seen such a soory excuse on what to expect from my children. I am sory that I just cannot continue this conversation at this point.
Thanks very much for answering my question, if any of your kids are Christians or not, with a resounding NO!
ReplyDeleteThe difference between us is that you are treating or correcting your kids outward actions, not the inward ones.
If I can use a simple analogy for your children with a car. Your car is beautiful and looks very sharp since you polish it almost every day. It is a car that gets many compliments on how it appears. When you look under the hood though, you see the neglect that you have done on that car. No matter how many times you run it through the car wash, it will not fix the rusted engine underneath that hood. Your car will not last no matter how good it looks on the road. When the engine finally fails you will have a broken car that looked good at one point and that is it. Your car didn't have a fighting chance to last, because of your neglect.
Now say what you mean, and mean what you say. Good-bye.
So, Dan, you are accusing froggie of neglecting his children? I like where this discussion is heading. :)
ReplyDeleteOnly a coward would inflict pain on a child.
ReplyDeleteYou just cannot man up and tell us how you "correct" your kids.
You continue to use euphimisms, but even though you hurt you children, even you, you coward cannot actually admit it. You have used every word in the english language to describe how you spank your children but you cannot come to grips with actually admit that you administer pain.
You are a stinking coward. And I am sure that you will think about this the next time you get out your "rod" or your "belt" or whatever instrument it is that you use to inflict pain on those poor innocent children.
Do you whack them on their backs as the bible recommends?
Produce welts as James Dobson recommends?
Do you ever feel sorry after you have abused them? Probably not because sociopaths don't feel empathy..
You compare kids to a car?
ReplyDeleteYou are a stinking child abusing coward.
Any one of my kids has done more to enrich the lives of others more than you will ever do in your whole life, Dan.
ReplyDeleteThere will come a day when one of your kids is not going to take this abuse any longer and when that happens you are going to be very sorry for what you have done.
Okay, Froggie, when a child does something wrong do you say "good boy"? The simple fact is that anything that would suppress undesirable behavior qualifies as pain. Even when it is empathy that spurs you not to harm another, that is an emotional pain.
ReplyDeleteI can't really blame Dan for not giving specifics, here. You seem eager to jump down his throat no matter what he says. I am quite aware that there is no consensus on what the dividing line between correction and abuse is. But your posts suggest you don't see a line at all and would call anything other than saying "good boy," "abuse."
So what did you do when your children exhibited inappropriate behavior? Particularly when they were too young to understand such concepts as empathy.
Oh.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is so witty.
It's fun to read.
Just stopping by to say hello.
God Bless :)
Publius,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to try to pull the same shit on me that you did on Clostridiophile, have at it.
You have shown yourself to me, to be a rather inept, albeit articulate contrarian.
The you make this absurd statement.
"The simple fact is that anything that would suppress undesirable behavior qualifies as pain. Even when it is empathy that spurs you not to harm another, that is an emotional pain."
And of course you are very wrong. First, we have been implicitly speaking of physical abuse; Corporal punishment, or Dan's euphemistic "loving correction."
"You seem eager to jump down his throat no matter what he says."
That is not true. I have agreed with him on at least two occasions.
"I am quite aware that there is no consensus on what the dividing line between correction and abuse is. But your posts suggest you don't see a line at all and would call anything other than saying "good boy," "abuse.""
I know you are smart enough that you know you have put words in my mouth that cannot be inferred from what I have written. That makes you dishonest, and I have seen you do this before to other people.
"So what did you do when your children exhibited inappropriate behavior? Particularly when they were too young to understand such concepts as empathy."
It is painfully obvious that you have never raised any kids or studied human development.
While kids are born with the potential for empathy, and it's twin generosity, it is not guaranteed. There are studies available now that I did not have back in the day that show very well that generosity and empathy are linked to the way a child was raised.
Parents can be enormously influential in helping their kids be concerned about others needs by prioritizing it in their homes. It's a slow, gradual process.
You asked how, but equally important is when, at what age.
I am sure that no one would be spanking a kid before they can walk. Once they start to walk they are aware of emotions well capable of empathy. Watch a toddler sometime if their mother is crying about something. My role as a parent was to cultivate and help them develop healthy emotions.
Spanking is the easy way out but creates trauma. Spanking is punishment, not development. It appears to work because it interrupts the unacceptable behaviour, but no emotion is appealed to other than that of resentment, no matter how much you tell them you love them while spanking them.
(Cont'd)
(Br't F'd)
ReplyDeleteRather than spanking, the unacceptable behavior can be interrupted by merely picking up the child, taking them to the next room and explaining that pulling on the plant will make the dirt spill out and it would make a mess which Daddy would have to clean up. Show that you are not happy that they did not listen to you. Stay with them for a while and reinforce the admonishment. Then tell them, if you pull on the plant again then you and I will have to lie on the bed and take a nap and daddy doesn't want to do that and neither do you. Have them make a commitment.
If they do it again, which I sometimes hoped they would so I could show them my commitment to follow through- then do exactly as you said. They will then see that you too are sacrificing in your effort to teach them. This type of sacrifice for our kids is amazingly successful. But, it's not going to work the first time or every time but far more often than people who have never tried it could even imagine.
I have dozens of memorable examples of how successful this is. Also, a pound of prevention is worth a pound of cure so constant reinforcement of rules is important.
I have heard parents say they don't have time to discipline in that manner. Then they have no business having the kids in the first place.
Sacrificing for children is how we demonstrate and show empathy.
I know people that are still spanking their kids when they are six and seven years old and older! That is because they were spanked rather than being treated with empathy through sacrifice of the parent. The child can well see that the parent is sacrificing. If generosity and empathy are cultivated, there is rarely any need for harsh discipline of any kind after age five. That is when the "course correction" phase begins.
I have a lot more to add on cultivating generosity and emotional intelligence in kids but this is probably not the time or place.
Suffice to say, every time someone spanks a child they miss out on the best opportunity to cultivate empathy in that child.
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"God's wisdom is so advanced then ours that He knew to instruct us to spank with a stick instead of our hands. By the mere sight of the stick the child understands and does the right thing, most of the time."
Wait. So are you saying you use physical weapons against your children or are you going against God's instruction?
Rod of Correction +2
ReplyDeleteDamage: 1d4
Bonus: 1d4 against bare child's buttocks, 1d2 against clothed child's buttocks
Behavior modification saving throw (temporary) (d20): 17
Behavior modification saving throw (permanent) (d20): 2
Special feat: A roll of 19-20 for temporary behavior modification, or 1 for permanent behavior modification, will result in a +5 bonus to craftiness on the part of the target, and a -2 to the attacker's THAC0
Likelihood of lifetime resentment (percentile): 85
--
Stan
Froggie:
ReplyDelete"'You seem eager to jump down his throat no matter what he says.'
"That is not true. I have agreed with him on at least two occasions."
Then by way of clarification: You seem eager to jump down his throat no matter what he says as pertains his "correction" of his children. I thought that part was rather plainly implicit. You are calling for specifics and are showing an eagerness to jump down his throat.
"And of course you are very wrong. First, we have been implicitly speaking of physical abuse; Corporal punishment, or Dan's euphemistic 'loving correction.'"
I have seen people switch over to claims of "emotional abuse" when non-physical punishments are used.
"If you want to try to pull the same *** on me that you did on Clostridiophile, have at it."
Well, here you might want to be a little more specific as to your objection. For example, you could say "When he stated that large-scale evolution was a proper scientific theory you called for examples of potential falsifications but rejected potential falsifiers that were only conceived after they were ruled safe."
Now, you called me a contrarian; and I can see where you might say that. I tend to speak up only when I disagree with something and let points of agreement fall in silence. That is, perhaps, a failing on my part. But I suspect that your objection is more that I won't just "think like the crowd."
"Rather than spanking, the unacceptable behavior can be interrupted by merely picking up the child, taking them to the next room and explaining that pulling on the plant will make the dirt spill out and it would make a mess which Daddy would have to clean up. Show that you are not happy that they did not listen to you. Stay with them for a while and reinforce the admonishment. Then tell them, if you pull on the plant again then you and I will have to lie on the bed and take a nap and daddy doesn't want to do that and neither do you. Have them make a commitment."
Well, you did answer my question. I have to give you crdeit for that. After your comment Clostridiophile, I expected that you would dodge and only give a list of things you "wouldn't do."
Publius,
ReplyDeleteThanks for a thoughtful and well measured response.
"I have seen people switch over to claims of "emotional abuse" when non-physical punishments are used."
Emotional abuse is as harmful as physical abuse. reinforcing generosity, empathy and personal responsibility is in no way considered emotional abuse.
Emotional abuse is the act of taking away the personal identity of an individual and convincing them they are worthless.
"But I suspect that your objection is more that I won't just "think like the crowd."
I would urge you to think for yourself in all cases, just as I do my kids.
Respectfully submitted,
/F
Hey, since the topic's long since been forgotten here, and the usual friendly sniping has begun again, I might as well say that I'm back from Romania. Hi all!
ReplyDeleteDan- I saw a billboard some time ago in the country in Austria, put up by some Christian group- I've forgotten whether Catholic or Protestant, but a fairly new sect, I think. It showed a bunny and the the text was "A true Christian doesn't eat anything with eyes".
Do you know of any Biblical support for this? Thanks.
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you answers and I am sure you have tried your best on your own to raise children.
We all fully know that you have raised five kids well enough to adjust to this world. But IF, a big if, there is a God and an after life you must understand that you have signed their death warrant. Own up to that an be a man about it. Don't run away from this as you said you would do here.
Empathy is wonderful and I applaud your attempts to pull it out but Submission is most important as in to our Father. They trust you enough to listen to you and submit to your authority. That is most important when they need to submit to Christ. Which we all know that none of your kids have done.
I still love you though and wish you no harm. Please stay.
Oh and something else I forgot to address...
When talking about Bible verses you asked:
Who is that intended for? Your wife?
You must have the Bible and the Qu'ran mixed up. In the Qu'ran it says you can beat your wife, not the Bible.
Only a friend will tell a friend that they stink so actually I appreciate you and Pvb's comments. We are trying to figure these 'life's questions' out. I just trust God more then you but that doesn't say that I don't value peoples opinions. Which I do.
My kids submit to my authority and I am depending on God to guide them all to Him. Maybe spanking kids allows that to happen easier. If that is the case I am just fine with that. In a very short time, they are growing up fast, we will know if I have made the right choices. They are great loving kids. They care for each other even at these young ages. It's a privilege to be a parent, I am sure we can agree on that.
I wish you and your family the best.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteThere you are, now I can breath again :)
I cannot think of any corroborating Bible verses for the claim of no eyes. I can only think that is a vegetarian comment. It is true that, before the fall, all things ate only fruits, nuts, and vegetables. But that was then, not now. I tell you what though, I would only eat vegetables around those people as to not be a stumbling block for them. (Romans 14:2-3, Romans 14:20-21)
After my fast I could only ingest fruits and vegetables. I do like things that are what I call "close to God as possible" as in raw foods. If I juiced something my stomach would turn and hurt. If I just ate the raw carrot I would feel great.
Not a fan of juicing. That is man's manipulation of perfection that, again, has failed. It was interesting why my body could only tolerate fresh fruits and vegetables 'only' the first couple of weeks after a fast.
I employ all of you to do a 20 day fast and then taste a fresh peach or strawberry for the first thing. It was quite simply...heaven.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou don't stink. You just smell a little funny, and, don't try being nice to me! ;)
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteSo much for you touting about empathy so much. You might want to try a little empathy yourself. You know, practice what you preach.
Or is this all a facade on your part?
I get it, you tell your kids "do what I say, not what I do." What an abuse of authority. tisk, tisk.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThou dids't apparently not noticeth the winkie at the end.
***big hug***
Dan,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, according to your book, it doesn't matter how you raise your kids since your supposed God has already chosen who will follow him and who will not;
"According as [Christ] hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated [Greek proorizo, to predetermine, to decide beforehand] us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...."
—Ephesians 1:4,5 (KJV)
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, according to your book, it doesn't matter how you raise your kids since your supposed God has already chosen who will follow him and who will not;
I was going to say that was a good point but "something" stopped me.
According to the Bible it does matter how I raise my kids because we are to trust God and not of ourselves. (Proverbs 3:5-6)
By your logic people could sexually abuse their kids in hopes they will be Christian. But that is absurd logic, agree? No we are to follow God's instructions and obey Him. Not some parts either, but all of it. If He says to spank, I will, if he says to repent and trust to be a Christian, I will. I trust God because He will never lie to me, can you claim the same and be honest with yourself?
This gets back to the presupposition question again...
From what authority do you get your information from? Is it merely subjective or is it objective? You use logic in your thinking but have you thought where those laws of logic came from? (The law of identity, The law of non-contradiction, The law of the excluded middle) Have you considered that? It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain. One must be able to account for the laws of logic, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of `and how do you know that?' Can you account for the laws of logic?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for not answering to the verse I quoted and then furthermore going on to beat up on a couple strawmen.
Like I said, according to your own book, it doesn't matter:
"For whom [God] did foreknow [proginosko], he also did predestinate [proorizo] to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? .... Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth."
—Romans 8:29-33 (KJV)
If [god] says to spank, I will, if he says to repent and trust to be a Christian, I will.
ReplyDelete...if he says to kill your son and offer him as a sacrifice, you will? If he says to kill a homeless person, you will? If he says to travel to Israel and kill the Christ-denying Jews, you will?
Somehow I doubt it. Somehow, I get the feeling that you only do what god "says" when it doesn't otherwise conflict with your notions of what are good and proper things to do.
As for the childish spin of this thread into Sye's presup bullshit, that's beneath even you, and even if it weren't, you suck at it.
One must be able to account for the laws of logic, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of `and how do you know that?'
Case in point. You suck at this. infinite regresses belie proof, and the question, 'how do you know that?' applies even if you assert that you can "account" for the laws of logic.
The laws of logic are assumed as axioms, in your world-view and in mine. You just assert that they are by-products of some magickal being. Your additional assertion is arbitrary and moot, though, for regardless of the type of magickal being, you still assume the same laws of logic -- the two are independently asserted. Logic, then, is the common axiom, and this is why we can communicate, much less proceed in a discussion of this sort.
In spite of all this, though, Froggie's point seems to stand: the bible's apparent mention of predestination means that the manner in which a child is raised has no bearing on his future status as a True Christian™. That being said, the extrapolation of that point to have implications regarding how a True Christian™ should raise his own children is invalid.
This is like saying that speed limits don't matter, since they have no measurable impact on the outcomes of children who ride in vehicles driven by speeding parents.
Of course, all of this is beside the point regarding child-rearing and whether it is acceptable to strike one's child physically as a form of punishment. When I was a child, the speed limit on the nearest freeway was 55 mph. When I was in middle school, it was increased to 65 mph, and by the time I was able to drive, it had been increased up to 70 mph. Today, it is back down to 60 mph. What does this tell us?
It says our understanding of acceptable behavior changes as our understanding of repercussions changes. 55 mph was a round number chosen somewhat arbitrarily, and reasonably high for the commercially available vehicles at the time. As vehicles became safer at higher speeds, we increased the limit. As congestion increased, and accidents increased (in spite of increased safety), the limit was again reduced.
The same is true of corporal punishment.
When my father was a child, being struck with a switch, belt, or any number of like implements -- including a parent's fist -- was a common feature of child discipline. When I was a child, a spanking across the buttocks or back of the thigh with a specially shaped piece of 1/4"-to-1/2" plywood was commonplace (with occasional open-palmed face slaps). For my children, only an extremely rare open-palmed buttocks slap (fully clothed) takes place, and even then I am careful to first explain why punishment is necessary, and after administering it, I am careful to explain how my child can avoid that punishment in the future, and I reinforce positive behavior at that time through compassion.
Froggie may not like it, and neither do I, but thankfully it is exceedingly rare (e.g. every other month at the most, including both kids), and when done, it involves no more than two such swats.
Psychology drives our understanding of appropriate childhood discipline, not a book that suggests that misbehaving children should be killed...
--
Stan
Dan
ReplyDeleteOf course it's okay to rape young girls. You must agree that numbers31:15-18 says just that. Why beat them? And if they're Hebrew just make sure you rape them outside of a city so if she bitches you can marry her instead of getting stoned.(to death).
Stan,
ReplyDeleteTo your claim...Froggie's point seems to stand: the bible's apparent mention of predestination means that the manner in which a child is raised has no bearing on his future status as a True Christian (deleted the™, joke noted)
I absolutely agree, thank God! So it doesn't matter if a girl gets raped she still may be a Christian, if she is called to be one. If a very wealthy corporate man is called, he will become Christian. But that has nothing to do with the subject. The red herring tasted good though.
What we are to do as Christians is obey God. Not blindly either, He proves all His claims with evidence. Evidence that you reject. That He only gives his 'nature' and we are to do our best to emulate His nature, not ours. You cannot strive for good results by neglecting instructions, more on that later.
Not 'getting involved' may be a mankind, very weak, instinct but we are not to follow that. We are to do the right things, no matter how hard it may appear. Selfish ambition is a, mankind natural instinct, but God instructs us to deny those instincts and place other first. I know for me that was something very new and refreshing, as I was raised to set ethics aside, to get mine, and fight for pole position in life which my conscience told me was wrong.
Somehow, I get the feeling that you only do what god (sic) "says" when it doesn't otherwise conflict with your notions of what are good and proper things to do.
The good and proper things in life are of God and feels right to do because God built that into our conscience, His nature that is.
You suck at presuppositional arguments also so I will avoid, but I will at least comment on what you have said.
The laws of logic are assumed as axioms, in your world-view and in mine.
"I understand that you accept the laws of logic as axioms, but that tells us nothing about what actually is. You assume the axiom to be true, but since it can be neither demonstrated nor proven to be true, you cannot know it to be true. True? For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning and I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything.
That being said, the extrapolation of that point to have implications regarding how a True Christian™ should raise his own children is invalid.
Blah, blah...speed limits don't matter... (analogy) Speed limits are subjective, yes. Your point? Axioms are subjective?
So you are saying that as Christians we are to do whatever we want? Nope you miss the point. In that, no matter how you're raising your kids you are not in charge of them. God calls who he wants and if an evil father molests his child, or refuses to spank them, God will call who He calls, in spite of mankind's wishes. You cannot strive for good results by neglecting instructions, even the speed limit laws what ever they are set at this week. So we agree to the subjectivity of mankind, even science and speed limits, is in fact changeable. God, and His nature, is not.
Dax,
ReplyDeleteOf course it's okay to rape young girls.
That is merely your sick interpretation of that passage. No where does that say to rape woman. Take them as your own is rape? So by that logic a daughter is for raping?
Besides, the civil instructions to the Israelites do not apply to us anymore since they were nailed to that Cross in Christ. Are you claiming that you are an Israelite under the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David? (tinyurl.com/CNCCK)
Blah, blah...speed limits don't matter... (analogy) Speed limits are subjective, yes. Your point?
ReplyDeleteYou answered my comment out of order, so I'm going to try to piece it back together for you...
The speed limit analogy was to illustrate that while the speed limit has no bearing on the outcome of a child riding in a speeder's vehicle, speed limits are still useful and necessary. I was siding with you, in a way -- I was noting that the two things are separate, and that the fact that one's outcome may be predestined has no bearing on a presumed commandment to raise children in a specific fashion.
While I disagree with the way you raise "your" children, I recognize that it is not inconsistent for Christians to claim a requirement to raise children in a particular manner, versus the claim that one's manner of raising has no bearing on one's outcome.
What we are to do as Christians is obey God.
I agree that if there is a god, and Christians follow it, then they should indeed obey it.
Not blindly either...
This is more difficult, since the only way you can follow this alleged being is blindly.
He proves all His claims with evidence.
No, you assign evidential value where there is none. The "evidence" of which you speak says nothing to the existence of a god, much less your god.
Evidence that you reject.
Rightly so -- it is beyond specious, and purely assertive.
That He only gives his 'nature' and we are to do our best to emulate His nature, not ours.
This part is odd... If god only gives his "nature," then his nature includes killing many, many people, and predestining most of humanity ('broad is the path to destruction') to eternal torment. Is that the nature you are to emulate, or are you selective in that regard? If you are selective, then how do you determine which aspects of god's "nature" you should emulate, and which you should not?
You cannot strive for good results by neglecting instructions...
So if god tells you to kill a child, you will do it? If god tells you to kill a homeless person, you will do it? If god tells you to go to Israel and kill the Christ-denying Jews, you will do it?
Don't neglect those instructions, now...
The good and proper things in life are of God and feels right to do because God built that into our conscience, His nature that is.
So Abraham felt that taking Isaac up into the hills to there kill was "right to do because god built that into [his] conscience"?
Did it feel right to slay the Amalekite children, do you think? Did it feel right to have bears slaughter a group of obnoxious children?
Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning and I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything.
Copy this directly from the Douchebag, did you?
This sad piece of nonsense proves fatal to Sye's bullshit rhetoric, and perhaps you, simple Dan, will recognize it.
Sye's drivel hinges on a revelation of certainty from god, the details of which are conveniently unavailable, but the claim is nonetheless made that being certain requires being correct, and that through mysterious means god has revealed things to Sye and his demonic horde such that they can be certain of them.
Except...
Obviously there are those people who believe they are certain (based on revelation), who are not certain (as they are incorrect). How do you know you are not one of these people?
As an example: Some Mormons believe they are certain, but we would both say they are incorrect, and therefore not certain. How does their situation differ from yours, and could they, or you, identify that difference from within the world-view of choice?
If your answer is a non-answer, it is also a tacit admission that Sye's feces is flushed.
--
Stan
For Dale:
ReplyDeleteI had a face-off with Shannon, and won! Biggest tantrum she's ever thrown. She threw a toy phone at Rachael's head, so I marched her upstairs to her room (well, we share it, 2 separate beds though - there's no bloke to make it weird either, lol) and shut the door, explaining why along the way.
She's in there screaming "NO! NO!" and tries to open the door, but I'm holding it shut. So she opened all of my drawers and threw my clothes around the room.
So I went to her toybox, took five and put them in a bin bag. She refused to pick up my clothes. This was repeated until the bin bag was full of toys and I tossed them onto the top of a wardrobe while she looked on.
She went nuts, massive floor tantrum "I don't like you Mummy, you're BORING!" etc.
So I went downstairs, kept my calm and spoke perfectly reasonably and rationally the whole time when she followed me, whinging and whining.
She finally sensed that I wasn't going to crack.
She gave me a massive hug, kissed me, said sorry, and took me upstairs so that I could watch her tidy my clothes up.
It was brilliant! It took about an hour of perserverance, but she did everything of her own volition.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteSome Mormons believe they are certain, but we would both say they are incorrect, and therefore not certain.
Opps that is where you went wrong. Just because someone is wrong doesn't negate the certainty. If you are certain you can fly, and I attempt to talk you down, you still have to choice to follow what I am saying or jump. If you are completely certain then you will jump no matter what I say. Confident certainty is very powerful to the mind. We are both certain of God but only one of us is right...if you believe you are then you will leap into that faith. For your sake I hope you are right.
Sarah,
ReplyDelete(my 2 cents) She feels you are her equal and can be disrespectful to 'release' her frustrations on you, or Rachael's head with the phone as the case may be, and is not afraid of any consequences.
My kids, so far, has never said "I hate you" or any disrespect like that, breaking the 5th Commandment. When I spank them I tell them which Commandment they just broke and that I would rather punish them instead of them going to hell for breaking commandments.
Disrespecting the Commandments usually invokes the spankings.
Does that method you use teach fear of the consequences of misbehavior?
As a teenager will that child weigh the consequences for their actions. I know I didn't I threw caution to the wind because I knew my severest punishment, if caught, would be a grounding to my room where all my stuff was. I could only imagine how I would of acted if I had an image of my Dad cracking a stick on me for doing the wrong thing. Hopefully my child will fear my chastising more then the peer pressure being placed on them to do wrong, at the time.
Will your child mutter "I hate you Mom" as she is being passed a joint and gets into that car with the drunk kid...only to regret her actions later?
These are after all decisions we make that will effect the kids forever in their lives. Do we follow some disconnected dude that calls himself a frog? Or do we listen to our Father who loves us and wants us to succeed and do the right things in life? I have made my choice who to trust.
Sarah,
ReplyDelete(my 2 cents) She feels you are her equal and can be disrespectful to 'release' her frustrations on you, or Rachael's head with the phone as the case may be, and is not afraid of any consequences.
She is now... the toy confiscation hit home, believe it or not. She's been talking about it today, and definitely doesn't want it to happen again. She even rushed to put a t-shirt back on the chest of drawers after I knocked it off by accident this morning :)
My kids, so far, has never said "I hate you" or any disrespect like that, breaking the 5th Commandment.
Yeah I've never told my dad that I hate him, but I have told him that I don't like him. If I'd have told him that I hated him as a kid he'd have hit me. But when he was hitting me the mantra "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you" played through my young mind, make no mistake. Not so for my sisters. They used to hug him afterwards, crying and that. I used to have to be forced into hugging my parents.
She doesn't hate me. She just said it to get a reaction. Every day she calls me her "best friend in the whole wide world" without being pushed into it.
When I spank them I tell them which Commandment they just broke and that I would rather punish them instead of them going to hell for breaking commandments.
Well if nothing else they'll nver forget the big ten, Danny Boy :D
Have they coveted any oxen yet? ;)
Does that method you use teach fear of the consequences of misbehavior?
I'm getting there Dan, and yes I do veer into the more relaxed side of parenting. It's easier when her dad is around, he's actually excellent with her, despite our numerous problems. He's stricter than I am, but has never shouted at her or hit her, ever. She just does what she's told whenever he's around. Maybe she's scared that bad behaviour will make him leave. She's too little to vocalize all that stuff yet.
As a teenager will that child weigh the consequences for their actions.
I hope so, but Dan, I made some terrible mistakes almost as a reaction to the smackings and godly parenting of my father. He's admitted now that he went too far; but in a way it's too late. Our relationship is destroyed. His heart is demonstrably broken, but I'd be a liar if I said I felt anything for him. In his misguided love he stamped mine out.
Hopefully my child will fear my chastising more then the peer pressure being placed on them to do wrong, at the time.
My ex was hit by his dad when he was kid, with a stick (bamboo cane, rod fans), frequently. He was in prison at 17 for ABH, stole cars and made a living out of burglary until he was put in prison again at 21. He started boxing when he was fourteen, and by the time he was sixteen he was perfectly capable of kicking his dad's arse.
He hates his parents too. He doesn't even call them "mum" or "dad" anymore, just by their Christian names.
Will your child mutter "I hate you Mom" as she is being passed a joint and gets into that car with the drunk kid...only to regret her actions later?
Oh I certainly hope not. But from my experience mate, spanking your kids won't save them that fate.
These are after all decisions we make that will effect the kids forever in their lives. Do we follow some disconnected dude that calls himself a frog?
Dale has an excellenet record when it comes to raising his children, and is full of excellent advice for anyone who'd rather leave spanking as the final resort rather than the first choice. I respect him a lot.
Or do we listen to our Father who loves us and wants us to succeed and do the right things in life? I have made my choice who to trust.
Well just be ready to grow with your kids. You've got a lovely family Dan, and I really wish you all the best. But he who has ears... ;)
Peace out
Sarah
I respect you and your choices Sarah I just wanted to share one more thought.
ReplyDeleteShe is now... the toy confiscation hit home, believe it or not.
When I read this I thought about taking things from children makes them long for that item, such as those toys, not understand the wrong they did. But again, is that the best to teach the kids? Should we take the thing they like, a toy, so they long for material possessions instead of respecting the Commandments and the parents?
To me that is wrong, but I follow God not man's fallible mind.
Keep in mind that even crack babies can grow up to be contributing members of society and many molested children make a huge positive impact in peoples lives later in their lives. My point is children, people, are very resilient and can endure horrible things and still turn out fine. But, how many spoiled brats contribute positively in life? I am not talking about privileged children either.
BTW I just heard on the news some dork just slapped a child because his mother wouldn't quite the child down in a Wal-mart, I believe. He said "If you don't shut that child up, I will" and then slapped the kid!
Wow, what would I do if that was me? I would like to think my calm loving Christianity would take charge, but I cannot rule out that I would have gotten medieval on that man.
I guess there is a lesson for people that do not discipline there children somewhere in there.
If you don't discipline your kids someone will, even the police, and they may not be as merciful and loving as you would have been.
Just because someone is wrong doesn't negate the certainty.
ReplyDeleteYou should consult your BFF Sye, then, because he disagrees with you. If you admit of the possibility of being certain while being incorrect, you will have released the hounds -- your whole position (that is, the presup bullshit) hinges on qualified certainty.
If you admit that Mormons can be simultaneously certain and incorrect, you must provide exclusion criteria -- which doesn't beg the question -- as to why your position doesn't face that dilemma.
If you continue to prattle on like Sye, including correcting yourself to say no, one can only actually be certain if they are correct (which does not deny the possibility of believing oneself to be certain despite being incorrect), you are still faced with my question:
How do you know you are not one of those who merely believes he is certain (based on revelation), yet who is not actually certain (as the position is false)?
I told you, you suck at this.
The conundrum cuts both ways, but you and Sye are the ones claiming access to omniscience via a claim to objective truth. Through answering -- even by not-answering -- my question, you tacitly admit (internally, if not openly) that your own position is not a special case; you are on equally shaky footing as any other human with regard to theology.
Only one of us has the balls to admit it, and to therefore refuse to pledge allegiance to any fleeting deity whose adherents cross my path.
We are both certain of God but only one of us is right...if you believe you are then you will leap into that faith. For your sake I hope you are right.
First, I do not claim certainty, except that as described, your deity cannot exist (due to a contradiction). Second, your statement is necessarily disingenuous, or at least a Freudian slip. I expect it's a bit of both.
If you truly hope I am right, then your stated position must be somehow uncomfortable, and you'd favor my own, or one rather like it. If you don't, then by saying it, you are indeed disingenuous, but also, as noted, you unwittingly speak truth -- deep down, you want me to be right.
--
Stan
If you don't discipline your kids someone will...
ReplyDeleteI think that's your position in a nutshell, with the caveat that you take the bible as the authority as to how to dish out that righteous child-smacking.
The problem is that it's false. On its face, even. Some children will go through life without ever being truly 'disciplined,' in your sense of the term, and other children will go through life moving from one disciplinary extreme to another. The case has been made, convincingly, even, that striking one's child as a form of punishment is not the best choice, and one cannot help but wonder if the vast tradition of child-hitting throughout human history has contributed to the apparently violent nature of humans.
Clearly, spanking doesn't stop kids from behaving in manners which defy the wishes of their parents -- I am a prime example of that -- and while I don't hate my parents for spanking, I didn't learn to respect the commandments so much as I learned to avoid getting caught. I even learned to intentionally get caught doing minor acts so as to avoid getting caught doing major ones.
I wasn't a bad kid, per se, and by anybody's standards I'd actually be a "good" kid -- the only time I was fingerprinted was at MEPS. But no, I didn't obey my parents at every junction, and as soon as I was my own man, I did what I pleased, and it pleased me plenty.
Discipline comes to each of us differently, and each of us handles it differently. To say that caning a child is mandated because of an ancient tome (which also advocates separation of cloth, marriage as a reasonable punishment for certain cases of rape, slavery, and genocide) is preposterous.
Dogmatic. That's your position. You accept the bible because you accept the bible, and you dare not question it, lest you be guilty of questioning it. Your god was wrong to create in the first place, if he didn't want a populated hell, so one must wonder if his stupid book is mistaken in other areas, too?
--
Stan
Yes deep down, I want you to be right but I know you are not.
ReplyDeleteI cannot stand the thought of Hell as a real place and people, including yourself, will be tormented there for eternity, even if deserving. It is too much for my pea brain to wrap around. I don't like it, even if it is true.
Dan, I took the toys because she messed up my stuff. It was to teach her how it feels to have someone go into your stuff and mess with it, and it worked.
ReplyDeleteOur household is anything but a materialist one, if you ever came round for dinner I think you'd totally see and appreciate that. My daughter never pesters for new stuff, but loves to keep what she has clean and fully functioning :)
She never tantrums in public or at nursery either, just every now and then at home she crosses the line; mostly because she knows she has the freedom to explore her boundaries and that her mum loves her no matter what.
We're figuring it out, bit by bit, together. I'll never stop talking to others and sharing their perspectives - hopefully you and I will be able to have a good old laugh about this in twenty years when our kids are happy successes.
=)