Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

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.

Well yes so according to progressives this is abuse in itself let alone beating a slave. So the bible seems to conflict with modern progressive ideology on these issues.

 

[Paidiske]

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

If someone uses the Bible to excuse harming another person, why should we refuse to point out the error?

So as far as the truth about what corporal punishment is child abuse should we use the Australian or majority world view on this.

You and I both live in Australia, and are both bound by current Australian law.

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.

If I were a mandatory reporter, as I am here? Darned right I would. The days of clergy covering up abuse need to be over.

Your assuming Australia hodls the ultimate truth about what is classed as abuse.

I'm assuming that the law of the land is binding. And I might remind you that complying with the law of the land is Biblical.

So the context justified beating slaves. If that conext happens again will we be justified to beat slaves.

There is no context in which we will ever again be justified in owning slaves.

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.

I think you're reading way more into that, than the text can support.

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.

I cannot believe we are actually having this conversation. Jesus never said that slave owners "should" be allowed to beat their slaves. And he said lots of things - like that the second commandment was to love one's neighbour as oneself - which would show just how completely outside the reign of God such an action would be.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well yes so according to progressives this is abuse in itself let alone beating a slave. So the bible seems to conflict with modern progressive ideology on these issues.

Sounds like good reasoning to update ones source material. Some ideas are out of date.

 

[stevevw]

You and I both live in Australia, and are both bound by current Australian law.

Yes but you missed the point. Australia is not the ultimate truth on what is abuse or not. If Australian law said descriminating against Indigenous people was ok woyld that make it ok. If Australian law said denying a child to change sex (to cut of body parts) is abusive does that mean its the truth.

If I were a mandatory reporter, as I am here? Darned right I would. The days of clergy covering up abuse need to be over.

Once again your missing the point. You just claimed as a moral truth that a light slap is not abuse, that its morally ok as a truth independent of culture. Now your changing your position according to whatever a particular culture says like the culture holds the ultimate truth which they don't.

I'm assuming that the law of the land is binding. And I might remind you that complying with the law of the land is Biblical.

THis is a misrepresentation of what the bible means about obeying the laws of the land. It means obey the laws of the law so long as they do not contradict the law of God. If the law of the land says abortion is ok should Christian women follow that law.

There is no context in which we will ever again be justified in owning slaves.

Its a hypothetical which is justified as a thought experiement to show the faulty logic of your thinking.

I think you're reading way more into that, than the text can support.

No its not, its a straight forward reading without reading too much into it.

I cannot believe we are actually having this conversation. Jesus never said that slave owners "should" be allowed to beat their slaves. And he said lots of things - like that the second commandment was to love one's neighbour as oneself - which would show just how completely outside the reign of God such an action would be.

But he also never said that beating a slave is wrong. Not diciplining them is actually a lack of love because you don't care that the person change for the better and avoid problems.

 

[stevevw]

Sounds like good reasoning to update ones source material. Some ideas are out of date.

Its only good reasoning if you think modern progressive ideology about what is moral is correct. The simple fact that progressive society changes with the times shows that its subjective and has no bearing on what is morally true or not. It could be true or it could be untrue.

We can't tell because there is no independent measure. The idea that morals can change implies some objective truth we are aiming for which is in contradiction to modern proegressive thinking..

 

[Paidiske]

Yes but you missed the point. Australia is not the ultimate truth on what is abuse or not.

Australian law is, however, the standard that is binding on both of us.

If Australian law said descriminating against Indigenous people was ok woyld that make it ok.

There are many bad things on which the law is silent. However, on the matter of the abuse of children, it is not.

You just claimed as a moral truth that a light slap is not abuse, that its morally ok as a truth independent of culture. Now your changing your position according to whatever a particular culture says like the culture holds the ultimate truth which they don't.

In my humble opinion, a single light slap is unlikely to cause lasting trauma. That's not the only measure of whether it's morally okay, though. And I have said, repeatedly throughout the thread, that I have no problems if countries choose to outlaw corporal punishment altogether.

THis is a misrepresentation of what the bible means about obeying the laws of the land. It means obey the laws of the law so long as they do not contradict the law of God.

And, fortunately for all concerned, the law of God does not require us to hit one another; or even our children.

No its not, its a straight forward reading without reading too much into it.

Just because Jesus tells a story about a situation involving a particular behaviour, it does not mean Jesus approves of that behaviour.

But he also never said that beating a slave is wrong. Not diciplining them is actually a lack of love because you don't care that the person change for the better and avoid problems.

Let me get this straight. You are seriously arguing that not beating a slave is a lack of love?

I'm out. I'm done. If you can't even see what's wrong with that argument, then there is nowhere for this conversation to go.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its only good reasoning if you think modern progressive ideology about what is moral is correct.

The late 18th century is hardly "modern". Moral objection to slavery as a movement goes back at least that far.

The simple fact that progressive society changes with the times shows that its subjective and has no bearing on what is morally true or not. It could be true or it could be untrue.

We can't tell because there is no independent measure. The idea that morals can change implies some objective truth we are aiming for which is in contradiction to modern proegressive thinking..

You seem to finally be getting the point -- there is no independent measure of morality because morality isn't objective. Our morality can improve as we think about how things might be better in the future than they were in the past, hence, the near universal agreement that slavery is bad.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't notice this line before and it's quite messed up, so I will respond.

But he also never said that beating a slave is wrong. Not diciplining them is actually a lack of love because you don't care that the person change for the better and avoid problems.

Holding someone as a slave can never be an act of love. If someone actually cared for someone's well being they wouldn't keep them as a slave. Slavery is definitionally a violation of the freedom of the other.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sounds like good reasoning to update ones source material. Some ideas are out of date.

Good idea - a new bible to reflect modern thinking... The UN could write it...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Good idea - a new bible to reflect modern thinking... The UN could write it...

Who needs a bible, I don't. Got no use for it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I didn't notice this line before and it's quite messed up, so I will respond.

Holding someone as a slave can never be an act of love. If someone actually cared for someone's well being they wouldn't keep them as a slave. Slavery is definitionally a violation of the freedom of the other.

Mmmm... I lived in South Africa and noted that some families adopted their servants. Each servant was paid a small amount that supported several folks back in the homeland. Not exactly slavery but even in slavery the relationship between slave and owner can be very strong and loving. So I think slavery in some cases seems to be mutually beneficial. Even loving.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Who needs a bible, I don't. Got no use for it.

Bet you would read it if it was published by the UN...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I could give a list of verses to be snipped out...

 

[Carl Emerson]

If someone uses the Bible to excuse harming another person, why should we refuse to point out the error?

Right - we snip out the verse where Jesus says authorities don't bare the sword for nothing...

Romans 13:
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

 

[Paidiske]

Right - we snip out the verse where Jesus says authorities don't bare the sword for nothing...

Romans 13:
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

How on earth is this remotely relevant? The authority of government to protect its citizens (and residents) from the evil of other citizens doesn't make it okay to have, and beat, slaves. Quite the opposite; it speaks to the duty of government to protect people from slavery, and beatings, and abuse!

 

[stevevw]

Australian law is, however, the standard that is binding on both of us.

Yes but its not binding everyone else on this thread and if we are talking about the actual truth about what is classed as abusive CP we need to consider what is actual truth and fact beyond specific cultures. Otherwise we make the culture the arbitor and as we know different cultures have different ideas about what is moral.

There are many bad things on which the law is silent. However, on the matter of the abuse of children, it is not.

That cannot be because we have a situation where the UN and most other nations say any CP is abusive and should be outlawed. Yet Australia supports a degree of CP. So if the UN and the rest are right that any CP is abuse then Australia is being silent about child abuse by not acknowledging their laws are in contradiction to UN Human Rights.

In my humble opinion, a single light slap is unlikely to cause lasting trauma. That's not the only measure of whether it's morally okay, though. And I have said, repeatedly throughout the thread, that I have no problems if countries choose to outlaw corporal punishment altogether.

If you say you adhere to Australian law then isn't six slaps legal. If you think a single slap in the limit then you contradicting yourself.

And, fortunately for all concerned, the law of God does not require us to hit one another; or even our children.

Gods law doesn't have to specifically say the beating of slaves for disciplining reasons is right or wrong. But Jesus in using the example of beating a slave as a way to correct their behaviour is acknowledging that this seemed an acceptable way to correct behaviour.

Just because Jesus tells a story about a situation involving a particular behaviour, it does not mean Jesus approves of that behaviour.

Then why use it. It gives the wrong impression. Thats unless it was an acceptable way to control bad behaviour. Peter even implies that a slave recieving a beating and suffering as a result is commendable before God.
1 Peter 2:20
But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

Let me get this straight. You are seriously arguing that not beating a slave is a lack of love?

Doesn't the Bible say that correcting a person with dicipline is done in love.

Scripture tells us that discipline shows us God's love (Heb. 12:6). For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”

Proverbs 13:24
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

I'm out. I'm done. If you can't even see what's wrong with that argument, then there is nowhere for this conversation to go.

Its a logical fallacy (red herring) to conflate the loving beating that the bible talks about as being abusive. I am not saying that an abusive beating is showing love, thats your misrepresentation of what I am saying.

I am saying that measured discipline including physical punishment when necessary is showing love as its setting boundaries for behaviour which will produce an upright person in society who will actually thrive and not have suffered abuse. Its the same principle when God says that he chastices and diciplines those he loves to make them into a better person before God and to be saved from sin and death.

Hebrews 12.7
Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?…\
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.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes but its not binding everyone else on this thread and if we are talking about the actual truth about what is classed as abusive CP we need to consider what is actual truth and fact beyond specific cultures.

Or we could take, "not so abusive that it breaks the relevant law" as a pretty low and necessary bar.

That cannot be

There is plenty of Australian law around child abuse. The law is not silent on this matter.

But Jesus in using the example of beating a slave as a way to correct their behaviour is acknowledging that this seemed an acceptable way to correct behaviour.

The key word there is "seemed." That didn't make it right.

Then why use it.

I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with our Lord.

Peter even implies that a slave recieving a beating and suffering as a result is commendable before God.
1 Peter 2:20
But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

Peter is writing to slaves who were owned by non-Christian masters, in a situation where they had no choice, and giving them advice about how to conduct themselves in that situation. He wasn't condoning slavery, or beatings!

Scripture tells us that discipline shows us God's love (Heb. 12:6). For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”

Get back to me when God literally beats you, and then we'll take that as precedent.

Proverbs 13:24
Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

This has been dealt with at length in the thread already.

Its a logical fallacy (red herring) to conflate the loving beating that the bible talks about as being abusive.

No. No it is not. There's no such thing as a "loving beating." The suggestion is vile beyond belief.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mmmm... I lived in South Africa and noted that some families adopted their servants. Each servant was paid a small amount that supported several folks back in the homeland.

Were they slaves or are you not that old? Was Apartheid loving too?

Not exactly slavery but even in slavery the relationship between slave and owner can be very strong and loving. So I think slavery in some cases seems to be mutually beneficial. Even loving.

Do you understand that most of us find this opinion to be sick and abhorrent?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Bet you would read it if it was published by the UN...

Why do you think I am a UN fanboi? (Is it because I've never typed out something I've said out loud many times: "UN HQ should move 500 meters to the east." ?)

 

[Carl Emerson]

How on earth is this remotely relevant? The authority of government to protect its citizens (and residents) from the evil of other citizens doesn't make it okay to have, and beat, slaves. Quite the opposite; it speaks to the duty of government to protect people from slavery, and beatings, and abuse!

Please - have you forgotten what you said ???

I quote...

"If someone uses the Bible to excuse harming another person, why should we refuse to point out the error?

Herein there is clear warning about God sanctioning harming others as an expression of His Wrath against wickedness.

Same with the verse you hate me quoting...

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.