Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Carl Emerson]

Great

Can I suggest that the next time your workmate needs a little loving correction you administer a solid slap to his/her nether regions.

OB

Too late...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I'd say that's an overly simplistic take. I just gave you a Biblical reason for the position I'd take. The question is how we bring various Biblical texts and principles to bear on a contemporary situation.

So the advice in the Bible...

PROVERBS 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

...is discarded because you feel it does not apply ?

Do we believe the bible or you ???

 

[Paidiske]

So the advice in the Bible...

PROVERBS 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

...is discarded because you feel it does not apply ?

It's not "discarded." It might very well, for example, prompt us to consider questions of correction, guidance, discipline, and so on, and apply ourselves to them diligently as parents. It might also prompt us to learn about harmful vs. not-harmful parenting approaches and how to parent as well as possible given the best of contemporary understanding.

The Bible isn't calling us to reject all new knowledge on child development, trauma and the like. But this text can be read as an encouragement to be a diligent, thoughtful, attentive parent, without seeing its only message as "beat the child!"

 

[Carl Emerson]

It's not "discarded." It might very well, for example, prompt us to consider questions of correction, guidance, discipline, and so on, and apply ourselves to them diligently as parents. It might also prompt us to learn about harmful vs. not-harmful parenting approaches and how to parent as well as possible given the best of contemporary understanding.

The Bible isn't calling us to reject all new knowledge on child development, trauma and the like. But this text can be read as an encouragement to be a diligent, thoughtful, attentive parent, without seeing it's only message as "beat the child!"

The best 'contemporary understanding' should not eclipse what the Bible is clearly saying.

See what other readers think...

Further comments welcome.

PROVERBS 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

 

[Paidiske]

The best 'contemporary understanding' should not eclipse what the Bible is clearly saying.

Then let me ask you, Carl: Do you think, knowing that physically abusive discipline can cause massive harm, we should continue to engage in it, or advocate for it, because "the Bible says"?

How do you justify that in light of the second great commandment?

 

[Robban]

What you are describing is aggression. As soo as anger happens you become the bad guy.

No matter how angry my boy has made me (and boy howdy he can) I’ve felt any inclination to smack him. I don’t think I could hit him. I live him too much.

So I find a way to discipline him without hitting him and get the results I as parent want. Which requires patience and a consistent non-angry way.

The best 'contemporary understanding' should not eclipse what the Bible is clearly saying.

See what other readers think...

Further comments welcome.

PROVERBS 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell . Do not hold back discipline from the child, although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

The Lord is my shepherd..............Your rod and staff they comfort me.

What shepherd beats the sheep in his care?

Psalms 141:5,
Let the righteous one strike me with kindness and let him rebuke me.......

Isaiah 11:4,

......... and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth and the breath of his lips......

Suggesting oral correction or rebuke.

You may be confusing with "Rule of thumb" some mean if the rod is not thicker than the thumb, it is OK to beat your wife with it.

Also ridiculous.

 

[stevevw]

I wonder what the general opinion is of the fact that a child's adult character is created by age five. Who has the greater influence on that development, the parent or peers?

The parents of course but even before a child is born. The research shows that the stresses and actions of a mother will influence the baby when born. So creating a safe and peaceful environment before birth is important. When babies are born into a world of chaos they will suffer problems, physical and psychological problems and are already setup to have more chance of failing.

 

[stevevw]

Why? If they believed it was wrong, they wouldn't be doing it.

I thought this discussion was stressful for you but you keep buying in. I will only answer some replies rather than all.

How many people do things they believe are wrong. Its called the fallen state. Remember Paul, I do what I know is wrong.

Who believe it's right to abuse but don't do it? Are there many of those? Evidence please?

No not believing its right to abuse but believing corporal punishment is right and yet don't abuse their kids ie a light slap on the backside as a last resort. How does your solution that we re-educate everyones belief and attitudes about corporal punishment being ok fit with those who believe in corporal punishment but don't abuse their kids.

No, that wasn't what I said. You claimed that particular attitudes to abuse were more prevalent in particular household structures, and I asked for evidence. I was looking for studies into the prevalence of different attitudes to abusive behaviour by household structure. I haven't seen anything looking specifically at that.

So I have misunderstood what you said. I thought you were talking about the attitudes of society as a whole. That is what you were on about earlier when you said the solution to stopping corporal punishment is to change the beliefs and attitudes that corporal punishment is ok to use.

I cannot see how individual households could have varying beliefs on this. They either believe its ok or don't believe its ok to do. So I thought you meant the overall societal beliefs and attitudes within households.

That's a lot of hypothetical theorising. Once again I will ask for evidence that abusive parents are "out of control" when they abuse, rather than making deliberate and considered parenting decisions.

How is it hypothetical theorising when I just gave you evidence for this, its fact. Even basic logic tells us that a person with mental problems is less capable of making rational decisions than a person without mental problems. Can a person with an addiction have the same control over the decision to take drugs as a person without an addiction.

Single mothers were more likely to engage in psychologically controlling behaviors, which predicted to their adolescent offspring experiencing higher rates of depressive symptoms and externalizing disorders. It is likely that single mothers are not inherently inferior parents relative to cohabitating mothers; rather, their parenting practices are often compromised by a myriad of demands and stressors. Consistent with this postulate, low socioeconomic status was associated with single motherhood and negative parenting behaviors.

Single Mother Parenting and Adolescent Psychopathology - PMC

Children raised in single-mother families are at increased risk for psychopathology, but the mechanisms that help explain this relationship are understudied. In a community sample of diverse adolescents (N= 385, 52% female, 48% Caucasian) and their ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

POWERLESS PARENTS REACT WITH ANGER!
Researchers report that these parents hesitate, pause, stumble through responses to their children, offer ambiguous assertions, and then… attempt to respond with power tactics. This can take the form of “bully-like” responses that are extreme and demanding.

Powerless Parents React With Anger! - Terrific Parenting by Dr. Randy Cale

Understanding what powerless parent is and how children respond. Simple and complex answer when parents feel powerless...

terrificparenting.com

But that's correlation, not causation! Do you actually understand the difference?

Ok for the perhaps 10th and last time as I said there is ample evidence of the direct relation between a fathers active involvement or absence of the out come of child development, behaviour problems and child abuse.

“The weight of the evidence is that fathers can make unique, direct contributions to their children’s well-being. These findings held true after controlling for a range of factors, including mothers’ involvement, children’s characteristics, children’s early behavioural problems, family income. https://dads4kids.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FACTS-ON-FATHERLESSNESS.pdf

Sigh. Steve, an "unqualified" claim isn't one not backed by evidence (although your evidence is shaky, anyway).

You keep saying this without any qualification. So can you please explain why the evdience I linked is shaky evidence when Its been repeated scientifically by indpendent sources finding the same results which constitutes good science being that its repeated independently.

No. I am not implying anything about the prevalence of abusive fathers, simply acknowledging their existence.

But the existence of some abusive fathers doesn't negate that most are not abusive in TF. This doesn't deminish the less risk for TF where the father is actively involved. Your taking a few abusive fathers to wipe out the fact that a fathers active presence is not a protective factor.

I don't think you've established either to be an accurate statement.

Thats just a false and unsupported claim. I linked clear evdience and its repeated independently over decades.

Compared to their peers living with both of their biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes have a:

• 77 per cent greater risk of being physically abused;
• 87 per cent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect;
• 165 per cent greater risk of experiencing notable physical neglect;
• 74 per cent greater risk of suffering from emotional neglect;
• 80 per cent greater risk of suffering serious injury as a result of abuse; and a
• 120 per cent greater risk of experiencing some type of maltreatment overall.[19]

The High Costs of Fatherlessness - Quadrant

Child abuse and neglect overwhelmingly occur in households from which the biological father is absent or removed. Shamefully, recognising and defending fathers' role in the protection of their biological children is spurned by the prevailing left-feminist agenda

quadrant.org.au

Although I think it's funny, then, that it's not the presence of a mother that should be considered the protective factor, since clearly, if we accepted this picture, she'd be the one making the difference to his behaviour.

Well yes the presence of a mother is also important but in a different way to fathers. I implied this when I say that kids need both parents. But relating to the OP a fathers presence relates more to dicipline and and managing child behaviour more directly.

But a single father will also have issue but the research shows they have less issues. But either way they have issues. The best scenario is when both biological parents are present.

So many unfounded assumptions in that statements.

OK do you think it would come down at all.

I haven't singled out single mums for education. I have said that all parents need to be equipped not to abuse. So, yeah, that inclludes fathers. (Given that "not abusive" is a pretty low, but necessary, bar to being a "good father."

But isn't it better to target our support as well. Sure we can provide overall awareness and support but considering that funds are limited its better to target that support to those who need it the most like single mums.

Again, you're missing the fact that the ones that leave are then no longer counted as coming from "traditional" families. So it makes the abuse rate look lower in "traditional" families and higher elsewhere.

But your assuming that all those fathers came from TF when in fact because TF happen less today and more people are cohabitating, or women are having kids without a father present in the first place. You are also assuming that abuse was taking place when fathers leave a TF setup.

For example over 50% of children in Britain, 63% in France, 40% white and 69% for blacks in the US were born out of wedlock in cohabiting setups.

Over half of children in England and Wales now born to unmarried parents

In 2021, more babies – 51% – were born to unmarried mothers in England and Wales than to those in a marriage or civil partnership for the first time since records began in 1845. This is a huge change. For centuries, “illegitimacy” and unmarried parenthood has been associated with stigma, shame...

www.manchester.ac.uk

Share of non-marital births in France 2022| Statista

In 2022, in France, most of children were born out of wedlock.

www.statista.com

Dramatic increase in the proportion of births outside of marriage in the United States from 1990 to 2016 - Child Trends

The families into which children are born, and in which they spend the early part of childhood, have changed dramatically over the past several decades. Among the most notable changes is an increase in nonmarital childbearing—that is, the percentage of all children born to unmarried parents...

www.childtrends.org

Around 20% plus kids are born without any father present at all in the US.

Children born with no father listed on the birth certificate | KIDS COUNT Data Center

Table data for Children born with no father listed on the birth certificate

datacenter.aecf.org

So it seems the majority of fathers leaving or not being present from birth come from non TF.

The fact that parents abuse. And that that abuse is driven by strong beliefs that abuse is acceptable, is justified, is normal, is harmless, and so on, so parents have no problem with continuing to use it.

So what about those who believe corporal punishment is ok. How can a persons belief be the underlying problem when some if not many believe a light slap is ok if not beneficial.

It's not a comparison at all. It's a statement of fact.

No its not because you were using that statement generally about corporal punishment and its effects assuming that all corporal punishment results in beating kids until they suffer trauma. Thats its not the case as some if not many have used corporal punishment without any bad effects and in some cases with beneficial outcomes.

I appreciate that. Although it concerns me that the reasons it's distressing - the fact that it's so difficult to get people to even acknowledge the nature of the problem - seem to be in something of a collective social blind spot.

Yes generally it seems theres this idea that agression and violence is the answer. We see this generally in the culture wars where society is increasing at each others throats over differences in beliefs and ideologies about what is the right thing to do. This can filter down into relationship conflict, DV and child abuse.

But I don't think child abuse is just about attitudes and belief. I think its overload of modern life, the expectations on people to earn and conform to the unreal expectations modern life demands. For some children just become another obstacle that is causing them stress and they are an easy target.

 

[Paidiske]

How many people do things they believe are wrong.

But the evidence is that's not the case with this particular issue. We know that abuse is driven by beliefs which justify the abuse (in all kinds of abuse, such as domestic violence, as well). When those attitudes are successfully challenged, behaviours change.

No not believing its right to abuse but believing corporal punishment is right and yet don't abuse their kids ie a light slap on the backside as a last resort. How does your solution that we re-educate everyones belief and attitudes about corporal punishment being ok fit with those who believe in corporal punishment but don't abuse their kids.

They're not the issue. If, in reducing abuse, we also reduce some non-abusive behaviour, what's the issue?

I thought you were talking about the attitudes of society as a whole. That is what you were on about earlier when you said the solution to stopping corporal punishment is to change the beliefs and attitudes that corporal punishment is ok to use.

Well, but the point of changing social attitudes is that in doing so we will, of necessity, change the attitudes of some abusers.

How is it hypothetical theorising when I just gave you evidence for this, its fact.

You did not give evidence that single mothers under stress are more aggressive and therefore abuse more. You've thrown a whole heap of stuff together and come up with some unfounded conclusions. And - crucially - you have given no evidence that abuse occurs when parents are "out of control" due to stress.

Ok for the perhaps 10th and last time as I said there is ample evidence of the direct relation between a fathers active involvement or absence of the out come of child development, behaviour problems and child abuse.

But it's not causative. You can say it until you're blue in the face, that basic reality doesn't change.

So can you please explain why the evdience I linked is shaky evidence

I have done, at length.

I linked clear evdience

Very flawed evidence, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

OK do you think it would come down at all.

Without doing anything else to address the abuse that was already occurring? No, I very much doubt it would.

But isn't it better to target our support as well. Sure we can provide overall awareness and support but considering that funds are limited its better to target that support to those who need it the most like single mums.

What support are you talking about here? If we're talking about abuse prevention, parents with a history of being abusive in any way should probably be the highest priority.

But your assuming that all those fathers came from TF

No. I'm just pointing out that the fact that some of them did skews the statistics in both groups.

You are also assuming that abuse was taking place when fathers leave a TF setup.

It's a very common reason for breakdown of a household.

So what about those who believe corporal punishment is ok.

What about them? If they're abusing, they're part of the problem. If they're not abusing, they're not relevant to this discussion.

How can a persons belief be the underlying problem when some if not many believe a light slap is ok if not beneficial.

People abuse because they believe they have a right to. They believe, as I said, that abuse is acceptable, is justified, is normal, is harmless, and so on. That's the attitude we have to change, no matter who it is who holds it, and no matter what household structure they inhabit.

No its not because you were using that statement generally about corporal punishment and its effects assuming that all corporal punishment results in beating kids until they suffer trauma.

No. What I said was, "Beat a kid hard enough, often enough, and trauma results." That's not saying "all corporal punishment results in beating kids until they suffer trauma." The two statements are not equivalent.

I think its overload of modern life, the expectations on people to earn and conform to the unreal expectations modern life demands.

If that were true, we probably wouldn't see decreasing abuse rates, but that's what every source I can find is reporting.

But you've missed my point, which was that while some people fixate on things like household structure, the underlying causes of abuse go unacknowledged and unaddressed.

 

[stevevw]

But the evidence is that's not the case with this particular issue. We know that abuse is driven by beliefs which justify the abuse (in all kinds of abuse, such as domestic violence, as well). When those attitudes are successfully challenged, behaviours change.

Then you would have to explain why people who do believe corporal punishment is ok and don't abuse.

They're not the issue. If, in reducing abuse, we also reduce some non-abusive behaviour, what's the issue?

The issue would be your forcing your belief or the States belief onto other people and denying their right to apply that belief when it doesn't do any harm.

Well, but the point of changing social attitudes is that in doing so we will, of necessity, change the attitudes of some abusers.

I think this is ok generally as far as abuse is concerned. We could try and help people understand what is abuse and violence and how it effects people and society. But I think we have been doing that for years. In fact we have become so sensitive to what abuse represents that we are discovering new ways to define abuse.

But the issue is peoples interpretation of what exactly abuse is. What counts as abuse. That is a different story as people can have different views about what constitutes physical abuse. So how do we determine who is right or wrong.

You did not give evidence that single mothers under stress are more aggressive and therefore abuse more. You've thrown a whole heap of stuff together and come up with some unfounded conclusions. And - crucially - you have given no evidence that abuse occurs when parents are "out of control" due to stress.

I am not just saying they abuse more because stress. It could be a number of reasons like psychological disorders or trauma, severe anxiety or regarding stress it would be more like PTSD.

Research shows that some who have been abused as children will abuse as parents so are at a greater risk of abusing. Obviously they are traumatised with unresolved psychological problems and are more volnurable to abuse compared to someone who has not been abused as a child.

Do you think people under duress, stress, have emotional problems, psychological disorders can act irrationally.

But it's not causative. You can say it until you're blue in the face, that basic reality doesn't change.

Ok so do you think its an influence, a factor they may indirectly lead to higher risks of abuse or better outcomes.

Very flawed evidence, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Ok lets unpack this. Do you mean flawed as in the claim that the TF setup or not is not the cause of abuse itself or that the actual research itself is flawed.

In the research it says for example that a fathers absence is directly linked to higher risk of abuse. What is your understanding of a direct connection.

Without doing anything else to address the abuse that was already occurring? No, I very much doubt it would.

Considering all solutions to preventing child abuse requires positive parenting and education then it would stand to reason that encouraging parents and fathers to be more actively involved would also mean promoting positive parenting and education. Just like it would for all family setups.

Obviously if your encouraging dads to be good dads you don't just encourage them to be there in person but to be good dads as fathers should be and fullfilling the role of a father to their kids. They go hand in hand. Part of being a good dad is not abusing your kids and ensuring their wellbeing and development.

As kids need both a mum and dad for optimum development it makes sense to encourage mums and dads to be mums and dads as part of any programe or policy that is aimed at reducing child abuse.

What support are you talking about here? If we're talking about abuse prevention, parents with a history of being abusive in any way should probably be the highest priority.

Yes I agree, why because parents with a history of being abused themselves are more prone to abuse their kids. So parents who have ben abused are within the Risk factor category as opposed to a protective factor.

But if thats the logic then why can't we target say single parents because for the same reason. Why can't we target support for this group more considering the research.

No. I'm just pointing out that the fact that some of them did skews the statistics in both groups.

Apart from that big assumption I cannot see any other skewing. Can you point out the other stats that may be skewed so I can better understand. But from what I understand now it seems there is no way there could be many TF that had abusive fathers because the majoirty came from either unmarried couples or single women who had a child without the father being in the house from near after birth or not at all according to the stats.

It's a very common reason for breakdown of a household.

I don't think its a common reason. It seems Infidelity, lack of communication, financial troubles, and lack of sex and intimacy are some of the most common reasons. It seems 85% of people get divorced because of a lack of commitment in the US. Though it doesn't specify if they have children it doesn't really matter because that 85% will cover all marriages kids or not.

What about them? If they're abusing, they're part of the problem. If they're not abusing, they're not relevant to this discussion.

Didn't you say the root problem for abuse is the persons belief or attitude that abuse is ok. If corporal punishment is regarded as abuse then those who use measured corporal punishment will be wrongly labelled as abusers and then become part of the problem.

People abuse because they believe they have a right to. They believe, as I said, that abuse is acceptable, is justified, is normal, is harmless, and so on. That's the attitude we have to change, no matter who it is who holds it, and no matter what household structure they inhabit.

But as this thread says corporal punishment is abuse. Yet there are people whose beliefs that corporal punishment is acceptable don't abuse. How do we sort that out. See it also comes down to what is regarded as abuse or not.

No. What I said was, "Beat a kid hard enough, often enough, and trauma results." That's not saying "all corporal punishment results in beating kids until they suffer trauma." The two statements are not equivalent.

No you were claiming that we can establish a direct causal link between corporal punishment and abuse. You used beating a kid hard enough that they will suffer trauma as evidence of that casual link. I said thats a false comparison for that casual link because people use corporal punishment and theres no trauma or problems and in fact some evidence that it benefits. So just because some suffer trauma from corporal punishment doesn't mean corporal punishment causes trauma.

If that were true, we probably wouldn't see decreasing abuse rates, but that's what every source I can find is reporting.

I'm not saying its the only cause but a general overlay of more stress for everyone that has occured in modern society. It may not be seen in child abuse rates though they are increasing, but in DV, assualt and violence in general not necesaarily physical abuse but antagonisim and resentment between people and groups.

So people who already will suffer mental illness (which has increased massively), psychological disorders and trauma which is also increasing will be more easily pushed over the threshold into violence and abuse when in more volnurable situations including family situations.

The fact is we have seen an increase in child abuse in modern times like I said even after better reporting. This seems to coincide with the breakdown in families which is also said to be a major facter in instability in society. As they say strong societies demand strong families.

But you've missed my point, which was that while some people fixate on things like household structure, the underlying causes of abuse go unacknowledged and unaddressed.

I am disputing your view of what is the underlying cause of abuse. You say its peoples beliefs and attitudes and that is part of it. But I disagree that its the only cause or even the major cause.

Like I said people have different views on what constitutes abuse when it comes to corporal punishment so that needs to be sorted. People also have different views on what is the root cause or causes and the solutions to prevent it.

Perhaps I am taking a more overall view, society wide view as we know that families have destablised so stablizing them is going to solve many problems including child abuse. Naturaly when preventing child abuse we also consider what is good parenting so that needs to be considered.

I agree there is also the micro view where we target support for families as they are as we need to intereven quickly when it comes to child abuse. But I think both strategies or all strategies need to be considered. One without the other will be misguided.

 

[Larniavc]

Did you not read my apology and that I reworded the issue?

I did not. On reading it I see you have reassessed your position.

Noted and appreciated.

 

[Larniavc]

The parents of course but even before a child is born. The research shows that the stresses and actions of a mother will influence the baby when born. So creating a safe and peaceful environment before birth is important. When babies are born into a world of chaos they will suffer problems, physical and psychological problems and are already setup to have more chance of failing.

That’s true but it does not stop forming a person’s character at five years old.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Then let me ask you, Carl: Do you think, knowing that physically abusive discipline can cause massive harm, we should continue to engage in it, or advocate for it, because "the Bible says"?

How do you justify that in light of the second great commandment?

What you describe as physically abusive discipline is not defined.

That is the problem - outlaw any physical discipline is not the answer.

Sadly as you cant condone going against scripture you weave a pitch that is politically correct and call out those who simply accept the Scripture at face value. Jesus did not present Scripture to be intellectually (personally) interpreted.

Righteous anger is part of God's character and is motivated by His Love.

 

[timothyu]

It seems we live in a time where no one is safe from those who are easily offended as they find a voice in the internet and have taken to ruining the lives of many with unproven accusations taken as gospel for a like or perhaps monetary gain. So it is obvious how things can get out of line quickly without set boundaries. Fortunately we have always had set boundaries when it comes to determining what is mild discipline vs injury, but of course cancel culture is not happy with that either. Regardless of technique used be it physical or mental, there will always be those who grow up damaged or worse yet having learned to take advantage of the game of victimization. Perhaps the best discipline would be to ignore these self entitled seeking a name for themselves in this new world closer to the self serving ways of the Adversary rather than the charitable ways of the Kingdom. Which side does it serve to eliminate what worked in the past in both secular and religious ways, to keep self serving ways at a minimum compared to this new end of days scenario desperate to defend total self interest contrary to the will of God..

 

[Carl Emerson]

It seems we live in a time where no one is safe from those who are easily offended as they find a voice in the internet and have taken to ruining the lives of many with unproven accusations taken as gospel for a like or perhaps monetary gain. So it is obvious how things can get out of line quickly without set boundaries. Fortunately we have always had set boundaries when it comes to determining what is mild discipline vs injury, but of course cancel culture is not happy with that either. Regardless of technique used be it physical or mental, there will always be those who grow up damaged or worse yet having learned to take advantage of the game of victimization. Perhaps the best discipline would be to ignore these self entitled seeking a name for themselves in this new world closer to the self serving ways of the Adversary rather than the charitable ways of the Kingdom. Which side does it serve to eliminate what worked in the past in both secular and religious ways, to keep self serving ways at a minimum compared to this new end of days scenario desperate to defend total self interest contrary to the will of God..

Timothy, I must say I read your post several times with some concentration.

I am beginning to wonder as you may as well, that a core issue is whether we believe in individual regeneration by the work of the comforter within us or rather embark on the intellectual dance that leads to a false individual security.

When the signs of the Kingdom were sent back to John the Baptiser, It included that the 'poor have the gospel preached to them'.

Therein is a shift of divine strategy -the unlearned carried the message rather than a trained priesthood.

The trained priesthood rejected Him when He came - illustrating that that approach had failed.

But this new Way of the Kingdom relied on the Holy Spirit regenerating and equipping the believers - sadly this focus is largely lost.

 

[Paidiske]

Then you would have to explain why people who do believe corporal punishment is ok and don't abuse.

I was speaking of abusive behaviour; we have agreed that not all corporal punishment is necessarily abusive.

The issue would be your forcing your belief or the States belief onto other people and denying their right to apply that belief when it doesn't do any harm.

And the state putting some boundaries in place is worse than people being abused?

But the issue is peoples interpretation of what exactly abuse is. What counts as abuse. That is a different story as people can have different views about what constitutes physical abuse. So how do we determine who is right or wrong.

We set a standard which will prevent behaviours which have been consistently shown to be damaging. That is why, for example, we have in Australia an understanding that corporal punishment with an implement other than the hand, hard enough to leave marks, or hitting more than six times, crosses the line.

Research shows that some who have been abused as children will abuse as parents so are at a greater risk of abusing. Obviously they are traumatised with unresolved psychological problems and are more volnurable to abuse compared to someone who has not been abused as a child.

Or their own experience has led them to believe that abuse is normal and right? The "it didn't do me any harm" brigade of actually quite damaged people is real.

Do you think people under duress, stress, have emotional problems, psychological disorders can act irrationally.

Sure. But you haven't demonstrated any link between that and abusive behaviour.

Ok so do you think its an influence, a factor they may indirectly lead to higher risks of abuse or better outcomes.

On its own, no. I think there are other factors in play.

Ok lets unpack this. Do you mean flawed as in the claim that the TF setup or not is not the cause of abuse itself or that the actual research itself is flawed.

Definitely the former, and a bit of the latter.

In the research it says for example that a fathers absence is directly linked to higher risk of abuse. What is your understanding of a direct connection.

It means these things are related; it does not imply a causative relationship between the factors, or spell out which way that causation might run. (I'd argue, for example, that abuse is more likely to lead to family breakdown, than the other way around).

Considering all solutions to preventing child abuse requires positive parenting and education then it would stand to reason that encouraging parents and fathers to be more actively involved would also mean promoting positive parenting and education. Just like it would for all family setups.

The problem is, when you keep talking about encouraging fathers to be involved, you don't specify this. It's as if you think invovlement, on its own, is enough, without looking at what happens in that involvement.

Yes I agree, why because parents with a history of being abused themselves are more prone to abuse their kids.

That's not what I meant. I meant parents with any history of being abusive themselves.

I don't think its a common reason. It seems Infidelity, lack of communication, financial troubles, and lack of sex and intimacy are some of the most common reasons.

I see it pastorally all the time. Far more, I'd say, than all the other reasons you list here put together.

Didn't you say the root problem for abuse is the persons belief or attitude that abuse is ok. If corporal punishment is regarded as abuse then those who use measured corporal punishment will be wrongly labelled as abusers and then become part of the problem.

I am not discussing non-abusive corporal punishment.

But as this thread says corporal punishment is abuse.

I am working from the common Australian legal framework, which I spelled out just above.

No you were claiming that we can establish a direct causal link between corporal punishment and abuse.

No; I know full well what I was claiming, and it was that we can establish a direct causal link between physical abuse and trauma.

The fact is we have seen an increase in child abuse in modern times like I said even after better reporting.

Where are you finding that stat? Every source I could find yesterday was reporting a modest decrease in physical abuse in recent years.

I am disputing your view of what is the underlying cause of abuse.

Yes, after 38 pages that is clear.

Perhaps I am taking a more overall view, society wide view as we know that families have destablised so stablizing them is going to solve many problems including child abuse.

Why would it, when child abuse was so prevalent in the past? It's not like there was less physical abuse, say, fifty years ago.

I agree there is also the micro view where we target support for families as they are as we need to intereven quickly when it comes to child abuse. But I think both strategies or all strategies need to be considered. One without the other will be misguided.

This isn't even what I'm arguing for. I'm looking at the attitudes people have long before they get to the point of abusing.

 

[timothyu]

Therein is a shift of divine strategy -the unlearned carried the message rather than a trained priesthood.

The trained priesthood rejected Him when He came - illustrating that that approach had failed.

As did the gentile priesthood years later when they abandoned the Kingdom to rejoin the world according to the Roman Empire in a world man made and continues to make over in our own image. Remember though, just as in the secular world there are two sides within Christianity so it is not fair to lump all into one mold, including 'priests'.

 

[Carl Emerson]

As did the gentile priesthood years later when they abandoned the Kingdom to rejoin the world according to the Roman Empire in a world man made and continues to make over in our own image. Remember though, just as in the secular world there are two sides within Christianity so it is not fair to lump all into one mold, including 'priests'.

Totally - this was not meant...

But the gift of intellectual humility is sadly rare.

 

[stevevw]

That’s true but it does not stop forming a person’s character at five years old.

True as character is more related to morals (good & bad character) which a parent can mold to some extent. But then with disorders like Autism, OCD, ADHD and ADD and all that which we have seen a dramtic rise this can effect behaviour and may cause kids to act out, be hyperactive, lack concentration in obeying parents and have a propensity to misbehave.

A parent may tell a child to stop misbehaving and they ignore them not because they are bad but because they have some compulsion to do so. The parent child hierarchy is flipped upside down where the child controls the household instead of the parents. I have seen doco's where the child drives the parent to their wits ends as they are out of control.

Usually medication can help settles them down but also therapy to learn how to restore parental control.

ADHD children out of control - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Larniavc]

True as character is more related to morals which a parent can mold to some extent. But then with disorders like Autism, OCD, ADHD and ADD and all that which we have seen a dramtic rise this can effect behaviour and may cause kids to act out, be hyperactive, lack concentration in obeying parents and have a propensity to misbehave.

A parent may tell a child to stop misbehaving and they ignore them not because they are bad but because they have some compulsion to do so. The parent child hierarchy is flipped upside down where the child controls the household instead of the parents. I have seen doco's where the child drives the parent to their wits ends as they are out of control.

Usually medication can help settles them down but also therapy to learn how to restore parental control.

ADHD children out of control - Google Search

www.google.com

Nothing to do with corporal punishment.