Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines

This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.

If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

No Longer Convinced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
    Of course. But your implication was that childhood corporal punishment led to an adult violent streak. Yet all these adults were in the same culture yet all were not particularly violent.
    But, as you yourself pointed out, Saul's violence was probably not culturally out of proportion. Everyone is different and there are so many variables that I would not attempt to set out any hard and fast rules. But if it is true that Saul of Tarsus was an argumentative, violent persecutor of meek Christians, I would not be surprised if he was perpetuating a circle of violence. Yet, another victim of physical abuse might conceivably be beaten into submission and passivity and react very differently.

    If a certain amount of corporal punishment is good, when administered with love and respect, and less is potentially bad for the child, this does not mean that more is necessarily better. We know nothing at all of Paul's parents, but I would not be surprised if his parents were not immaculately conceived and free of original sin.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Catholicity's method:
      1) Assume without warrant that shebet is referring to a shepherd's rod
      2) As a result of 1), apply the context of sheeprearing to the respective proverbs
      3) She gets her desired eisegesis!

      Everyone else:
      Wow you took me way out of context didn't you....
      A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
      George Bernard Shaw

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
        Wow you took me way out of context didn't you....
        It is just that Proverbs has a lot more to say about "the rod" than the one verse you cited. Looking at the teaching of Proverbs as a whole on the topic of discipline, it seems difficult to deny that corporal punishment was envisioned.
        Last edited by RBerman; 05-05-2014, 07:58 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          But, as you yourself pointed out, Saul's violence was probably not culturally out of proportion. Everyone is different and there are so many variables that I would not attempt to set out any hard and fast rules. But if it is true that Saul of Tarsus was an argumentative, violent persecutor of meek Christians, I would not be surprised if he was perpetuating a circle of violence. Yet, another victim of physical abuse might conceivably be beaten into submission and passivity and react very differently.

          If a certain amount of corporal punishment is good, when administered with love and respect, and less is potentially bad for the child, this does not mean that more is necessarily better. We know nothing at all of Paul's parents, but I would not be surprised if his parents were not immaculately conceived and free of original sin.
          I would also not be surprised if he were simply naturally aggressive or that the sin rises tomorrow. You really haven't stated an argument pertinent to whether corporal punishment is a biblically good discipline method.
          The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
            Wow you took me way out of context didn't you....
            Not in this thread he didn't. I pointed out the same things and got called a literalist (still chuckling) for my trouble.

            You assumed by casting about the semantic domain that the verse didn't teach something... Something obviously driven by your personal bias against it as evidenced by your later out of proportion inflammatory comments about what things are punishable and then pointed to other verses where guidance is meant--- as if the two are mutually exclusive!!!!- and then pointed back to your assumption as proof. Ta da!
            The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

            sigpic

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
              I would also not be surprised if he were simply naturally aggressive or that the sin rises tomorrow. You really haven't stated an argument pertinent to whether corporal punishment is a biblically good discipline method.
              Nor have I tried to formulate an argument, just making friendly conversation. I'm old enough that very little surprises me anymore.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Nor have I tried to formulate an argument, just making friendly conversation. I'm old enough that very little surprises me anymore.
                Okay. I still get surprised sometimes, there are whacky shows on cable.
                The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                sigpic

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Catholicity's method:
                  1) Assume without warrant that shebet is referring to a shepherd's rod
                  2) As a result of 1), apply the context of sheeprearing to the respective proverbs
                  3) She gets her desired eisegesis!

                  Everyone else:
                  Don't forget #4, accuse those who disagree as being "literalists".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
                    Not in this thread he didn't. I pointed out the same things and got called a literalist (still chuckling) for my trouble.

                    You assumed by casting about the semantic domain that the verse didn't teach something... Something obviously driven by your personal bias against it as evidenced by your later out of proportion inflammatory comments about what things are punishable and then pointed to other verses where guidance is meant--- as if the two are mutually exclusive!!!!- and then pointed back to your assumption as proof. Ta da!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The shepherds' rod is not the same thing as his staff. The Staff, the one with the crook at the end is the guiding tool/walking stick used to keep the sheep together, pull them from precarious situations, etc, . The rod was a weapon/club used to protect the herd and discipline wayward sheep.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren View Post
                        Okay. I still get surprised sometimes, there are whacky shows on cable.
                        I only watch a couple of shows on TV, most of them reruns. I'm currently making my way through all of the episodes of Frasier, in addition to the current seasons of Mad Men and Da Vinci's Demons. There are still occasional episodes of Law & Order that I haven't seen yet. I like it when the bad guys go to jail. This is more than enough for me until College football starts up again.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Oh, I know, but it's still hard for Catholics to imagine the Blessed Virgin Mary hitting a child.
                          Don't most Catholics believe that Jesus was Mary's only child? Further, James had a reputation for being extremely pious himself - even among the Jews.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Don't most Catholics believe that Jesus was Mary's only child? Further, James had a reputation for being extremely pious himself - even among the Jews.
                            That's the traditional doctrine, not sure if most still believe it, assuming they're even aware of it. As for James, the question still remains, was he pious and righteous because he was beaten or in spite of it? Or was it completely irrelevant?
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              That's the traditional doctrine, not sure if most still believe it, assuming they're even aware of it. As for James, the question still remains, was he pious and righteous because he was beaten or in spite of it? Or was it completely irrelevant?
                              I'm pretty sure we don't have the means to answer that question. Some children need rather more correction than others.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                                For years and years, I was brought up to believe that "spare the rod and spoil the child" was some kind of a biblical mandate.

                                Well its not. Its not a verse its not in the Bible. It says this:
                                Proverbs 13:24 “He who spares the rod hates his son. But he who loves him is careful to discipline him.”
                                .
                                I looked up the word for rod, Its shebet, which is more like a walking stick that shepherds use to guide their sheep not hit them.

                                the more I read verses come up like these:

                                Proverbs 22:15 “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it from him.”

                                Psalm 94:12 “Blessed is the man you discipline, O Lord, the man you teach from your law;”

                                Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

                                Proverbs 6:23 “For these commands are a lamp, this teaching is a light, and the corrections of discipline are the way to life.”

                                Proverbs 13:1 “A wise son heeds his father’s instruction, but a mocker does not listen to rebuke.”

                                Proverbs 15:5 “A fool spurns his father’s discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.”

                                Hebrews 12:9 “Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!”

                                Hebrews 12:11 “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”

                                Ephesians 6:4 “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”

                                What it really says is guide our children, not beat them. Obviously something has sparked this. I was thinking about the horrors I have heard and read from the book "To train up a child." And its not an isolated incident. All over the U.S. People are speaking up regarding abuses within the Church body, and it seems to come from areas that misinterpret and twist scripture from either ignorance or personal gain. So I wanted to investigate what these scriptures really said. Guide. Lovingly. Shepherd our children.
                                Yeah, the Pearl's take a lot of flak from the anti-spanking crowd, so I have to say you poisoned the well nicely with your "horrors" from the book. I read the book several times...some of the "horrors" had nothing to do with spanking. For instance, one parent couldn't get their child to potty train. So to clean them off, they used a garden hose to hose them off, it was IIRC, in the fall season, so the water was pretty brisk. One child learned quickly that wasn't a great idea. The other one they tried it on, gritted his teeth and endured it. So, instead, she wouldn't let him have any powdered sugar on his French toast and that changed his mind. (HOW Abusive!) So to say that the book ALWAYS promotes abusive behavior completely misses the point of the book. In fact, the method of spanking advocated in the book is far from abusive IMO. They advocate using a paddle, and to spank no more than 3 swats and pause to listen. The crying changes from pain, to sorrow if you know what to listen for. Using this method, I raised 3 children who listened and obeyed, but still have strong minds and wills. I know I spanked my daughter for the last time around 5 yrs old. She had a bad habit of drawing on the walls. After several other "discipline methods" failed, I used this method to spank her. I never had to spank her again. If you ask her today if she fears me, she will tell you no. But she has always respected and loved me.

                                Another thing advocated in the book is TRAINING! They teach you a very good principle. To train your children by playing a "game" with them. Have them do silly thing at your command. Like, run to the door and touch it with your Left big toe. Balance this toy on your head. Hop on one foot while counting to ten. Playing this game for about 15 to 30 minutes several times a week, teaches them to obey you quickly, while building your relationship with them and having fun. So, I totally disagree your take on the book.
                                "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                                "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by KingsGambit, 02-10-2022, 11:02 PM
                                58 responses
                                494 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Working...
                                X