Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[Larniavc]

Can you support you claim of a cause with some evidence?

Oh course not.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think we're done with this part of the conversation. There's absolutely no point quibbling about prevention of abuse, when you deny and obfuscate that clearly abusive behaviour is abuse, and are more concerned with possible government overreach than actually protecting children.

I take it you are referring to Jesus' parables; they are parables, told to make a point, and that point was not "beating is good!"

I think in many ways the Bible reflects the social norms of its culture and times (which is why, for example, in the New Testament slavery itself isn't made a significant issue). But the Bible gives us principles - loving our neighbour as ourselves; relating with one another with love, peace, kindness, gentleness, and so on, for example - which would mean that corporal punishment, except, perhaps at an extremely minimal end for exceptional circumstances with young children, has no place in the life of Christians.

In fact, one of those parables is quite illustrative:

"And the Lord said, ‘Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, “My master is delayed in coming”, and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."

Notice here that the one given authority, who misuses that authority to "beat" others, is considered blameworthy, and held accountable.

Beating can be abusive...

You will notice however, that the other servant was also beaten, and this action was not presented in a bad light.

 

[Robban]

On the contrary the Bible supports appropriate punishments (not abuse) and to depart from this wisdom for some 'new thought' approach does not serve society well.

When abuse does occur - deal with it with strict measures - don't abandon a biblically sanctioned form of discipline.

Yes, attitudes cause behaviour and the legislation against biblical principle in this case has been a disaster.

Have your 'new thought' schools without physical discipline if you insist, and allow folks to attend or not.

Don't force unbiblical measures by law.

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.

Found this,

William Webb points out what the Proverb above is saying.

"Spare the son from a premature death,
The ultimate penalty, stoning.

Severe rebellious teens (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
who violated God's law."


So, it is better to beat persistently rebellious youth than for them to violate a law that would require capital punishment.
(Authors comment)

Stoning is not carried out today.

 

[Robban]

Found this,

William Webb points out what the Proverb above is saying.

"Spare the son from a premature death,
The ultimate penalty, stoning.

Severe rebellious teens (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
who violated God's law."


So, it is better to beat persistently rebellious youth than for them to violate a law that would require capital punishment.
(Authors comment)

Stoning is not carried out today.

Proverbs 18:17

 

[Paidiske]

Beating can be abusive...

You will notice however, that the other servant was also beaten, and this action was not presented in a bad light.

And you will notice that I began my answer by noting that the parables reflect the culture in which they were spoken, without necessarily endorsing the aspects of the culture that they reflect.

I do not believe there is any such thing as non-abusive beating.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And you will notice that I began my answer by noting that the parables reflect the culture in which they were spoken, without necessarily endorsing the aspects of the culture that they reflect.

I do not believe there is any such thing as non-abusive beating.

So you see this Scripture as relative Truth and we should heed your personal interpretation?

Or are you expressing opinion and not claiming to offer an authoritive Word ?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you see this Scripture as relative Truth and we should heed your personal interpretation?

Or are you expressing opinion and not claiming to offer an authoritive Word ?

What do religious texts have to do with healthy child rearing practices?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Nothing to those who don't have an ear to hear them...

 

[Robban]

And you will notice that I began my answer by noting that the parables reflect the culture in which they were spoken, without necessarily endorsing the aspects of the culture that they reflect.

I do not believe there is any such thing as non-abusive beating.

Torah punishments may seem harsh but it is worth noting just how difficult it actually is to impose the death penalty in Jewish law.

Having got that out of the way,

Christians who are not under the law should stay away from it and so avoid using bits and pieces of it to justify their actions, which most often do not hold water.

That is abuse.

 

[The Liturgist]

Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Various sources*


A new study by the Australian Catholic University (ACU) has revealed that children who are smacked repeatedly by their parents are nearly twice as likely to develop anxiety and depression later in life.

The study of 8500 18 to 24 year olds found 61% experienced corporal punishment, as children, four or more times.

Females who were hit as kids were 1.8 times more likely to have a major depressive disorder, and 2.1 times to experience anxiety. Males were 1.7 times more likely to develop depression, and 1.6 times more likely to develop anxiety if they’d been smacked.

Professor Darryl Higgins, a lead researcher for the ACU study, believes it paints a clear picture that even infrequent exposure to corporal punishment puts children at risk of mental health disorders.

Professor Higgins is calling for smacking of children to be made illegal in Australia consistent with laws banning corporal punishment in 62 other countries.

According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, the evidence that corporal punishment is harmful to children, adults and societies is overwhelming:

“The more than 250 studies included in our review of research on the impact of and associations with corporal punishment show links between corporal punishment and a wide range of negative outcomes, including:

• direct physical harm
• negative impacts on mental and physical health
• poor moral internalisation and increased antisocial behaviour
• increased aggression in children
• increased violent and criminal behaviour in adults
• damaged education
• damaged family relationships
• increased acceptance and use of other forms of violence”

“The message from research is very clear: corporal punishment carries multiple risks of harm and has no benefits.”​

*Sources:

• Children who are smacked nearly twice as likely to develop mental health disorders later in life (9news.com.au)
• Childhood corporal punishment linked to lifelong mental health issues - ABC Melbourne
• Calls for Aussie parents to be banned from smacking their children | Daily Mail Online
• Shocking impact childhood smacking has on mental health (3aw.com.au)
• Research | Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (endcorporalpunishment.org)

OB

I support the immediate abolition of corporal punishment in all American schools which currently engage in paddling.

On the other hand, I do not object to parents engaging in light spankings of young children, but I am extremely opposed to the severe corporal punishment of children, such as the torture inflicted on Ruby Franke’s children, which is an act of extreme evil.

I recently met a sodomite with far-left political views who supported continuing the practice of corporal punishment in high schools, and had fond memories of his own paddlings, something I found deeply disturbing.

 

[The Liturgist]

And you will notice that I began my answer by noting that the parables reflect the culture in which they were spoken, without necessarily endorsing the aspects of the culture that they reflect.

I do not believe there is any such thing as non-abusive beating.

I think you are correct. My friend Colin Charles believes that spanking is extremely psychologically harmful, the more extreme, the worse it gets. He cited all of the posters in bus stops in London, which I myself have seen, advertising BDSM related services as an example of the dangerous lingering effects of those British youths who were caned prior to the abolition of school corporal punishment in the UK around 1991.

I would also note that it is my opinion that Scripture does not command physical corporal punishment, since there are other forms of chastisement, and what is more, I prefer Alexandrian Christological-typological-prophetic exegesis of the Old Testament, on the basis of the ending of the Gospel of Luke, where our Lord showed the disciples how all the books of the law and prophets related to Him. Thus I believe whenever we read the Old Testament, the question we should ask ourselves is, how does this relate to Christ?

For the only begotten son and word of God was permitted to be chastised with extreme violence by his heavenly Father, despite both being persons of the Trinity, very God of very God - when the Old Testament says that a father chastises the son whom he loves, I regard this as an obvious Christological prophecy, although I am not sure if the writers of the Old Testament were, in their inspiration, always aware of the true meaning of the text, for as St. Peter wrote in his second epistle, no prophecy is an exposition of itself. The meaning of prophecy only becomes clear in retrospect.

 

[stevevw]

I think we're done with this part of the conversation. There's absolutely no point quibbling about prevention of abuse, when you deny and obfuscate that clearly abusive behaviour is abuse, and are more concerned with possible government overreach than actually protecting children.

So society needs to discuss the details, determine what exactly is abuse and what is not and you claim thats showing more concern for freedom of rights than for protecting children. Why can't we do both. You seem to be implying that simply speaking about what exactly is abuse or not somehow equates to denying abuse which is basically a logical fallacy.

I take it you are referring to Jesus' parables; they are parables, told to make a point, and that point was not "beating is good!"

So does Jesus say that a misbehaving slave will be beaten by his master.

I think in many ways the Bible reflects the social norms of its culture and times (which is why, for example, in the New Testament slavery itself isn't made a significant issue). But the Bible gives us principles - loving our neighbour as ourselves; relating with one another with love, peace, kindness, gentleness, and so on, for example - which would mean that corporal punishment, except, perhaps at an extremely minimal end for exceptional circumstances with young children, has no place in the life of Christians.

Yet it allows beating of slaves as a justified form of corporal punishment.

In fact, one of those parables is quite illustrative:

"And the Lord said, ‘Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, “My master is delayed in coming”, and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."

Notice here that the one given authority, who misuses that authority to "beat" others, is considered blameworthy, and held accountable.

Yes but it also implies that the master is justified in beating a slave if he misbehaves.

 

[timothyu]

For the only begotten son and word of God was permitted to be chastised with extre;0me violence by his heavenly Father

Yes but He asked for their forgiveness so there is a lesson to be learned by the chastised

 

[Paidiske]

So you see this Scripture as relative Truth and we should heed your personal interpretation?

I don't even understand what you're asking. It's a parable.

Or are you expressing opinion and not claiming to offer an authoritive Word ?

I am merely pointing out that even in Scripture, despite these texts having arisen in cultures where abuse and violence were normalised, there are aspects which highlight the problems with this.

 

[stevevw]

And you will notice that I began my answer by noting that the parables reflect the culture in which they were spoken, without necessarily endorsing the aspects of the culture that they reflect.

I do not believe there is any such thing as non-abusive beating.

It doesn't matter if it reflects the culture of the time. Jesus still said that a master will beat the slave if they misbehave.

 

[Paidiske]

So society needs to discuss the details, determine what exactly is abuse and what is not

We've done that. You and I live in the same country that has clear standards. If you want to argue that something that I would have to report as abuse, should be accepted, from where I'm standing anything else you say has lost any credibility at all.

Like I said soon Australia will follow suit of most other nations and completely ban CP.

Really? Do we have legislation before parliament, or is this pure speculation?

How do we know thats not denying a good form of dicipline that may actually help some difficult behaviour.

Well, all the research suggests otherwise, so... I'd say we know because that's what the evidence shows.

So does Jesus say that a misbehaving slave will be beaten by his master.

Jesus uses the cultural reality of his day, that masters did indeed beat slaves, to illustrate his point.

Yet it allows beating of slaves as a justified form of corporal punishment.

Acknowledging that something happens, is not the same as allowing or approving of it.

But you know, if you want to argue that you should be allowed to beat your slaves because "the Bible," by all means go ahead, and we'll all know exactly where you stand.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But you know, if you want to argue that you should be allowed to beat your slaves because "the Bible," by all means go ahead, and we'll all know exactly where you stand.

Why attach shame or judgement to following what the Bible says ?

 

[stevevw]

We've done that. You and I live in the same country that has clear standards. If you want to argue that something that I would have to report as abuse, should be accepted, from where I'm standing anything else you say has lost any credibility at all.

So as far as the truth about what corporal punishment is child abuse should we use the Australian or majority world view on this. If you lived in another culture who completely outlawed CP would you then report to the authorities someone who lightly smacked their kid 3 times as abuse. Your assuming Australia holds the ultimate truth about what is classed as abuse.

Really? Do we have legislation before parliament, or is this pure speculation?

Spectulation with evidence. As the majority of Western nations, the UN and the fact that people claim there is hundreds of studies proving any CP is abuse then its a reasonable speculation to make.

Australia's corporal punishment laws in breach of UN human rights, researchers find. Australia's failure to outlaw the smacking of children is a United Nations human rights violation, a team of legal scholars and psychologists has found.

Is hitting a child in Australia a UN human rights violation? New research says it is

Australia's failure to outlaw the smacking of children is a United Nations human rights violation, a team of legal scholars and psychologists has found.

www.abc.net.au

So if Australia continues to allow CP will they be engaging in childrens Human Rights breaches or not. If Australia completely outlaws CP will you be reporting parents who smack their kids lightly 3 times as abuse.

Well, all the research suggests otherwise, so... I'd say we know because that's what the evidence shows.

But most people also claim that all the evidence says any CP at all is abuse. Who should we believe.

Jesus uses the cultural reality of his day, that masters did indeed beat slaves, to illustrate his point.

So the context justified beating slaves. If that conext happens again will we be justified to beat slaves. I don't think it was the context but the allowance of beating another person for dicipline in any context.

Acknowledging that something happens, is not the same as allowing or approving of it.

But when its used by Jesus as an example of misbehaviour and dicipline it seems to be approving of that sort of dicipline to control the behaviour of misbehaving slaves.

But you know, if you want to argue that you should be allowed to beat your slaves because "the Bible," by all means go ahead, and we'll all know exactly where you stand.

It was where Jesus stood. Remembering that He also mentions not to abuse slaves. So it seems the measured hitting of a slave to dicipline them was an important part of controlling bad behaviour. That a measured beating was not abuse.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So the context justified beating slaves. If that conext happens again will we be justified to beat slaves. I don't think it was the context but the allowance of beating another person for dicipline in any context.
But when its used by Jesus as an example of misbehaviour and dicipline it seems to be approving of that sort of dicipline to control the behaviour of misbehaving slaves.
It was where Jesus stood. Remembering that He also mentions not to abuse slaves. So it seems the measured hitting of a slave to dicipline them was an important part of controlling bad behaviour. That a measured beating was not abuse.

Even if a measured beating was not abuse, owning a person was abuse. I don't know how people keep missing this. It's a "missing the forest for the trees" kind of thing.

 

[stevevw]

Heres another progressive idea thats been surfacing in recent times. Just saying that sinners will suffer death and the pain of hell for the ultimate punishment of their behaviour is promoting abuse. According this line of thought death for sin is the ultimate punishment and there could be no greater punishment. So simply expressing this is being abusive.