Corporal Punishment – “Spare the rod…spoil the child?”,

Evaluating the success of sweden’s corporal punishment ban

In 1979, Sweden became the first nation to explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment of children by all caretakers in an effort to: (1) alter public attitudes toward this practice; (2) increase early identification of children at risk for abuse; and (3) promote earlier and more supportive intervention to families. The aim of this study was to examine trends over recent decades in these areas to assess the degree to which these goals have been met.

Results: Public support for corporal punishment has declined, identification of children at risk has increased, child abuse mortality is rare, prosecution rates have remained steady, and social service intervention has become increasingly supportive and preventive.
Conclusions: The Swedish ban has been highly successful in accomplishing its goals. http://www.sciencedirect.com

On Hitting Children: A Review of Corporal Punishment in the United States

Research has clearly demonstrated associations between corporal punishment of children and maladaptive behavior patterns such as aggression and delinquency. Hitting children is an act of violence and a clear violation of children’s human rights. In this article, the position of the United States on corporal punishment of children is discussed. Professional and international progress on ending corporal punishment is explained, and the relationship between corporal punishment and child abuse is discussed. An appeal is made for prevention efforts such as parent education and removal of social sanctions for hitting children that may hold significant promise for preventing child maltreatment. http://www.sciencedirect.com

Discipline and Compliance

Reasoning and power assertion are forms of discipline that are most frequently studied by developmental psychologists, with the latter considered the more optimal approach for obtaining compliance. Evidence suggests, however, that parents use a combination of these approaches and that children react differently to each depending on variables such as sex, age, temperament, nature of their noncompliance, and context in which the discipline is delivered (e.g., parental warmth, socioeconomic status). An elaborated approach suggests that compliance is most easily achieved when children accurately perceive their parent’s wishes and when they feel that discipline is fair and their compliance is freely chosen. http://www.sciencedirect.com

Childrearing, Violent and Nonviolent

Caregivers act in goal-oriented ways to socialize children who are adapted to their cultural environment. Violent childrearing induces rapid compliance under surveillance. Its costs are counted in greater childhood violence, in problems of adolescent mental health and delinquency, and in adult spousal abuse and mental health problems. There is no clear dividing line between phsyical punishment and child abuse. Nonviolent childrearing methods require greater parental time investment and empathy. Its benefits are better internalization of expectations, better prosocial reasoning, greater empathy and greater social attractiveness. Eighteen contemporary societies have made the transition to legislating against physical punishment of children and others have put major constraints on its use. The United Nations supports the direction to nonviolent childrearing under the aegis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The question of the relationship between violence in childrearing and endorsement of violence in international relations is considered. http://www.sciencedirect.com

Time Magazine

according to a new report by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, nearly a quarter of a million children were subjected to corporal punishment in public schools in the U.S. during the 2006-2007 academic year. Based on 202 interviews with parents, students, teachers and administrators, and supplemented with data from the U.S. Department of Education

Corporal punishment is legal under domestic law in 20 states … Texas paddles the most students in the nation, as well as the most students with disabilities … The total number of students, with and without disabilities, who were subjected to corporal punishment in the 2006-2007 school year was 223,190

Corporal punishment is banned in most juvenile correction facilities in the U.S., and yet it continues in public schools. The legal paradox can be traced to a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that found the Eighth Amendment only protects convicted criminals from cruel and unusual punishment — not students confined to a classroom.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915820,00.html#ixzz1H4thOf86

United Nations

Corporal punishment of children breaches their fundamental human rights to respect for human dignity and physical integrity. Its legality in almost every state worldwide – in contrast to other forms of inter-personal violence – challenges the universal right to equal protection under the law.

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html

Opps, didn’t mean to say, “I don’t have studies.” I meant to say, “I don’t hate studies.”

It is possible for a couple to raise moral, ethical children, who know how to make good decisions, without corporal punishment. By the time our son was three, he said to me once, “Daddy, don’t make me tell you about choice and consequences. I don’t want to talk about why I did it. Just spank me like other daddies do.” We used a discussion of choices and consequences, coupled with time out for bad choices. Both of our children are bright, moral, ethical people and caring, compassionate adults.

I can understand an occasional swat on the rear with a hand, but only once a child understands the choice made and consequences of his/her action, after about 3 years of age. Before that the child cannot comprehend it. BTW, a swat on the rear with the parent’s hand does not abuse the child, and must be done calmly. Use of any other tool can be abusive.

Alice Miller dedicated her life to helping abused children in her practice as a psychologist and worked to oppose the “poisonous pedagogies” (or “Black pedagogies) in Europe, a long tradition of aggressive and repressive corporal punishment ideology. She worked with the UN to counter this as well as female circumcision in Africa. I wish she’d have survived a bit longer in order to comment on Lydia Schatz’ death. In her many books, she deals very honorably with Christian teachings that advocate or permit corporal punishment of children. She has many very trenchant things to say that I believe Christians can benefit from, even though I don’t agree with her on many points.

John Bradshaw recently published a book called “Reclaiming Virtue.” Now 70 years old, he finds himself revisiting his Jesuit upbringing and work as a priest, a much different message and spirit than he’s shown in the past. He dedicates a chapter to the vital importance of parenting (fathering in particular), a chapter he calls, “Were You There When Jesus Spanked the Children?” Among other things, he points out that God went from being Jehovah to Father when Jesus atoned for our sins, changing our relationship to God and to the Old Testament. Bradshaw asks and quotes others who ask that if we no longer stone people, should we also reconsider how readily we employ spanking as well? People treat it as a holy rite or something like a sacrament rather than what can be a life-saving measure (preventing a child from touching a hot stove or running into the street before they have the capacity to understand danger).

I’m not decrying spanking but am decrying chronic spanking that has become a terrible problem in many homes where it is a tool to beat perfection into an imperfect being. It comes along with doctrines of “first time obedience,” something God does not even demand or require of adults.

And in response to several recent replies on this blog quoting statistics, here and elsewhere on other threads, I shudder. I immediately think of Jesus’ parable of the good shepherd who loves his one lost lamb (probably one who wandered off). He goes and gets that one lost and loved lamb, leaving 99 others in order to get the one. When statistics are quoted to defend practices and traditions, I always think of this parable. If there is one sheep lost or one sheep suffers, that good shepherd goes after that one little lost one because just one who suffers in harm’s way is one to many.

If a study showed that 26% of pastors advise a wife to stay with an abuser and suffer harm, then that is 26% too many. If there is just one death due to spanking or child discipline that was well intended but went wrong, that is still one death too many.

I especially do not understand why addressing the inconsistencies and the problems (the many religious ideas that are either misused or misunderstood and result in abuse) — why is that seen as such a threat to those who believed that they taught the truth.

When it comes to my attention that something I’ve said or done resulted in harm to someone else, my first response is to show accountability –primarily so that I can understand what I said or did so that harm never comes to another again. We do not see this in our religious leaders, however. We see them respond with blame — blaming the victim, something that others term revictimization.

One lamb in harm’s way was too many for the good shepherd. Why is that not the first and foremost response of the church as well?

Arguing that we should readily demonstrate a spirit of forgiveness to those who have done wrong with good intentions does not negate the problem itself and is a separate issue. In a court of law, wrongdoers are found guilty, and it is a separate proceeding that dispenses the penalty. A judge might commute a sentence, but leniency is not shown to the guilty by claiming no fault was committed. I’m all for showing mercy, but mercy must find her love — justice — before they can kiss.

What do these leaders tell themselves about that one lost sheep? What do they do with the words of Jesus who came and sought them when they were lost and yet sinners? I think that they forget.

My other thought this morning after reading on this topic is the rhetorical question for which I have many ready answers. It is our fallen nature but I still ponder the question all the time:

Why do we so often seek a once-size-fits-all answer for complicated issues? Why do we look to men to give them to us, rather than go about the hard work of deciding (informed by the Word and the Spirit) what it is that God would have us do?

We used time out and removal of privileges, such as TV. (Time out accomplishes some removal of privileges.) Time out predominated until about age 6 or 7 and by 11 of 12 it was all removal of privileges.

BTW, incarceration of adults is essentially a removal of privileges (and opportunity to re-offend). Our only “corporal” punishment of adults today is execution.

Lydia,

What is it that you find amusing about the UN’s version of “human rights” ?

Karlton,

God’s character is what demands holiness. Our choice to sin (the fact that he knew it was going to happen doesn’t mean it wasn’t our choice) made a solution necessary. The fact that God’s solution the problem of sin involved his own sacrifice is indeed wonderful.

On the topic of the post…well somewhat more on the topic of the post…I would be curious as to Dee and Deb’s perspective on Proverb’s encouragement of the use of the rod..not on kids too young to understand obviously…but in general?

Karlton,

I’m going to let Paul respond to you on this one, quoting the first part of the chapter of Romans 8, something that comes on the heels of his lament about powerlessness over sin by his own will and desires. I chose the NKJV.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

A Christian can turn anything in the Christian life into a work, but we were delivered from legalism when Christ fulfilled the Law. Hebrews 10 says that we have the law written on our hearts. Though I certainly fear the living God, with fear and trembling, and I certainly owe him duty and obedience, I serve him out of love and liberty, not because of imposed power and subjugation. I don’t crawl up on God’s lap and cuddle with him like a child does who wants the candy in His pocket. I crawl up there because He loves me and believes in me more than I do myself. I end up being obedient (I aspire so, anyway), but it not out of some culture of obedience but because of the organic virtue of obedience that He gives to me through the power of the Holy Spirit. To that I aspire, and by God’s grace, it is so. That is His gift to me, wholly unmerited on my part, and it is His sovereign work in me to will and do of His good pleasure as I yield to Him. He doesn’t tell us all of the secrets of human agency and how that fits together with His sovereignty, but I know that the stinking sinful flesh that I am apart from the Holy Spirit can’t find its way out of a paper bag without Him.

Most verses in Proverbs that speak of a rod for a fool, is not speaking of children. The fool in OT wisdom literature is almost always referring to an adult who is bankrupt of all morals. So the proverb about a rod on the fools back, has nothing to do with raising children-in my opinion…

Just curious Karlton but what exactly do you believe in? No judgements. Just wondering.

Karlton,

I how did you right that paragraph without confusing yourself? I had to read it twice to follow all the circles 🙂

My answer is, of course, that if there is a God who actually is perfect and holy then your circles don’t mean anything. You assume that Scripture is a human invention. I think it is pretty clear it is not. So we won’t agree, on those matters..I was just commenting on the comment you made about Jesus saving us from a problem of his own making. Given the assumption that God does exist, and is holy, it was a wonderful solution for us.

Dee,

I think it is one thing to argue that the early chapters of Genesis are not a history textbook…but do you really think there is any possible way to justify the position that Proverbs does not encourage the use of the rod?

Proverbs 23:13-15

Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you punish them with the rod, they will not die.
14 Punish them with the rod
and save them from death.

Proverbs 13:24

Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

Proverbs 22:15

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.

I know you probably are familiar with those passages. Proverbs is meant to offer practical wisdom. The language is not vague. He says do not withhold discipline, and then adds in a comment about the rod. In 23:13-15 he repeats himself for emphasis. Punish them with the rod. In that time period, I am pretty sure “punish them with the rod” would mean to any reader “punish them with the rod.”

I can understand not taking Scripture literally where the author doesn’t mean you to take him literally. But just deciding that Solomon or any author doesn’t mean what he says?

Or would you acknowledge that the author meant exactly what he sounds like he means, but we can basically get the “heart” of what he is saying and ignore the specifics?

Joey, Sorry for the anon – for some reason I wasn’t logged in – K. Kemerait

Dee,

Well, here’s the problem you run into with that line of reasoning….who are you to “interpret”, “soften” or “change” the plain meaning of biblical text, simply because it runs counter to your sensibilities…on what authority can you do this?

You see, from an atheist’s perspective we see this all the time, Christians want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to profess the bible as the word of a loving, perfect and just God, then when something in there runs counter to their common sense or cultural sensibilities, they want the poetic license to “re-interpret” the meaning in light of our current cultural context, and then without any biblical support they claim that this “reinterpretation” was God’s plan all along in order to reach each generation.

Please!

I said, “As I see (which is limited at best, I get that) you are either merely trying to state things that you think many others are just not saying or there is something more that you are not saying…”

Opps, that middle part should read, “you are either merely trying to state things that you think many others are just not SEEING…”

Joey, I’m not really sure where I stand in this whole discussion, except for the fact that I don’t think it’s cool to say why people do what they do. (OK, so maybe we can say that Hitler wanted power but…)

So reading, “I think you are mangling straightforward interpretation because you don’t agree with the Scripture” doesn’t make me all that comfortable. Is it really possible to take one thing someone says and write that we know their heart or the whys of why they do things?

And yes, I would appreciate it if you remind me of these very words because I do indeed write the same way you just did and I know I will continue to in spite of my insistence right now that it is wrong to do so.

Stunned,

You are absolutely right, Dee I apologize. That sentence did reflect a judgment on my part that I have no way of knowing.

K-Man, I’m so glad no offense was taken!

I agree with much of what you said. Some of your post made me smile. Though, I don’t think that change or shift of opinion means that logic is off. As you well know, someone can change their mind on certain matters without logic not being served. So as people for a time believe one thing in the bible is literal, later on they may come to think of certain parts as more figurative. Doesn’t mean they are being illogical. Merely that they have changed. Therefore nailing down or getting all Christians to nail down which parts are literal and which figurative is…. illogical? Too much shifting. And who is to say who is right and wrong?

I am sure (well, relatively sure—- hopeful?) that you would agree that for a time one verse or proverb or wisdom of old could be useful for a person as they are working but for a different period of their life it coudl be healthy for them to see the same bit of wisdom from a different angle and see something entirely different. Does it mean one is wrong, either the before or after person? No, just different things.

Now, i don’t think that that is fully what you are saying. I suspect what you were saying is that at one period in time at any given moment you would like at least ONE person who professes Christianity to be able to have a discussion regarding literal/figurative with you without moving the goalposts. (Great word picture, btw.)

I spend too much time saying (in the least intelligable way possible) “Mmm, m, m” while shrugging my shoulders. Which means, “I don’ know” about most matters of God. Is this because debate bores me (in spite of all evidence to the contrary)? Is it because I think it is silly to try to pin down some enormous, just can’t stuff him into the box no matter how hard I try God? Is it because I am making all of this up in my mind? (and man, if that is the case, after I die and find out there is no more, man am I going to be PISSED!) Mmm, m, m. *shrug*

I don’t for one cotton pickin’ minute think that I could begin to understand God. None of him. I actually think it’s laughable that anyone thinks they can or does. And no, I don’t think he can be reasoned or understood. And I respect that for a variety of reasons you don’t think he/she/it exists. (I think God is a lot bigger than the box of gender/not gender pronouns, but who cares?) But for me, I can’t help shake this sense that this God who I can’t figure out no matter how much I try, exists and somehow and for some odd reason cares for me. (Who knows, maybe a cruel science experiment like the way a mad scientist who keeps animals to teach students what they are like?) Thing is, just because he doesn’t make sense to me, doesn’t mean for me that he doesn’t exist. Heck, if that were my logic, time didn’t exist until 1975. (For the life of me I couldn’t tell time until fifth grade.) Oh, and keeping to that logic, for me, cars do not run and planes do not fly, ’cause I couldn’t begin to tell you how they work, either. (Not so much for lack of intellect but I just can’t be arsed to bother finding out. 😉 )

For me God is outside of my ability to understand (just like American Idol and men) but as hard as I have tried to shake it in the past, I can’t help but be aware that there is something there that I can’t explain. And that it’s something personal. And I think it loves me, though some days I wonder if it’s looking for ways to kick me in the teeth. Though most days I think that this being loves me for whatever strange reason. I can’t seem to shake that sense. And I have learned more and more (and I believe scientists after years of studying are just beginning to find) that sometimes that sense is stronger than logic or the current limited knowledge of man.

Go ahead and say it sounds idiotic. I agree. Doesn’t mean that just becasue I think something sounds idiotic, it means it is, though. It just means that my ability to understand or reason is limited. Which I am guessing everyone’s is to a certain extent.

You know, I remember doing research on what was meant by “rod” years ago and being a bit surprised. I cannot remember exactly what it was but it was not what WE would think of a ‘rod’.

And thanks Joey, for what you said about proverbs. I always keep in mind it was written by a guy with 600 wives and concubines.

BTW: Joey, most of what we are discussing is spanking BABIES. I have spanked and so did my parents. but it is very directed, very clear and not in anger. So, a child has to be old enough to understand. In fact, we should only spank with tears in our eyes.

Stunned,

Sure thing.

Lydia,

You are right, we should dismiss Proverbs as the Word of God because it was written by a man who sinned…also, by that same token, I guess we should throw out the whole thing, and Karlton wins!

Seriously though, the fact that Solomon, for all of his wisdom, fell into the same temptations and sins he warned against so eloquently is sobering. But David was a murderer and the Psalms are still Scripture.

Karlton,

My reference to John 8 was applicable I think, because it directly involved stoning and adultery, which Dee had brought up, and Jesus response not to apply the Levitcal law, but to show mercy. This is because Jesus fulfilled the law so that we don’t have to…as Paul says, quite specifically:

“So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[c] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

Obviously this does not dismiss the need for civil and moral laws altogether, but it does release us from adherence to the specifics of Israel’s Old Covenant code.

John 8 was one example where the ceremonial/civil laws of Old Testemant Israel were dismissed. (And could be legitimately, as Christ was fulfilling the law, for us, freeing us to live by grace). As opposed to Proverbs, which is wisdom literature, and would need some other reason to be dismissed. That was my point, and I think it still stands.

Joey

I am not opposed to the occasional spanking. But, I am not in favor of regular whoping with the rod. I am in favor of discipline and tire of people whose kids are out of control.

You seem to be saying that, if you whop regularly with a rod, you are more Scriptural than those who do not. Is that true?

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So, following his example, since he was wise, should we?

Solomon left the kingdom in disarray, having taxed his people quite heavily. This led to a divided kingdom and lots of kings who did “evil in the sight of the Lord.”

Perhaps you believe that I was a wimp with my kids and gave them some timeout which would not have worked on you. My type of timeout would have occurred at the same time you were about to go play with friends or join your family for a trip to the ice cream stand or …. I might have made you clean the garage or go ad mow an elderly person’s lawn.

Many parents find that clever punishment can do as much and even more than striking them with a rod. However, it takes time, patience and thought in order to do it properly.GRabbing the rod is an easy fallback.

Again, what is the underlying principle? Discipline of our children. YOu and I both agree on this but I have a rod that is more psychological than others.

Joey

I still say that we cannot interpret the OT without the view of the NT. In fact, I would say that we cannot correctly view the Gospels without the Epistles. Solomon functioned under the old law. His views and perspectives were influenced by the Torah. Calvinists are fond of saying that we must take the full counsel of Scripture. So it is in this case. Proverbs is in the OT for a reason. God did not have it included in the NT canon. So, we must be cautious in how we treat this Book.

BTW, in all of my Bible studies, through all of these years, we always study the history of the characters behind the Scripture. It is relevant that Solomon did compromise his faith with all of his foreign wives. He screwed up badly and I believe we must remember this as we view all of the writings, including Proverbs. Proverbs does not stand alone just as no other book in the Scripture stands alone.

Are you available for yard work?

Dee,

While it seems that the vast majority of child psychology experts warn against the use of corporal punishment as a means of discipline. I understand the need for Christians to feel that they are following God’s dictates in these matters. That said, and with no further commentary on the topic, I would offer the following “guideline” for parents that feel physical punishment is sometimes warranted.

NEVER EVER, should a child’s dignity or self-esteem be sacrificed on the alter of his parent’s beliefs.

In other words, in administering punishment, the child should never have either their dignity or self-esteem compromised as part of the punishment.

Dee,

I am not sure how the fact that Solomon sinned should affect the way we read the Proverbs. Or how David sinned should affect how we read the Psalms. Or how Paul sinned should affect the way we read the Epistles. I completely agree with interpreting Scripture via other Scriptures…the NT shines great light on the OT.

But I am definitely of the old school opinion that it is ALL the Word of God, and that the context, context, context, helps us to interpret correctly, not decide which parts of Scripture aren’t true. Or which parts we can ignore because the writers were flawed.

Incidentally I worked in the landscaping industry through college and miss it sometimes…

Dee,

That’s a lot of questions.

“I think understanding David’s sin gives deep insight into his thoughts in the Psalm. God chose to work through the lives of the writers. He could have produced a book devoid of human contact but used men and their struggles to give depth to His word.”

I completely agree. And I think, like you said, the various experiences of the writers inform our understanding of the text. I don’t think that we can dismiss anything any of the writers of Scripture said under the inspiration of God because of their various sins. Your comment about Solomon led me to believe (perhaps wrongly) that we should take what he says in Proverbs differently than we would if he remained free from some of his sins later in life. I think that perspective would lessen the authority of God’s word, since now our perspective of the wisdom contained in Proverbs in not dependent on the truth it contains in and of itself. Whether we should spare the rod or not shouldn’t depend on our view of Solomon at all since Proverbs is a book of teaching that is nowhere else in Scripture rebutted, and is the Word of God, not Solomon.

Now you may agree with that but add that not everything said in Scripture is meant literally, which is absolutely true. So you could say that when the Bible says that he who spares the rod hates his children, that the rod in this case simply means “instrument of discipline” and you can substitute any sort of reasonable discipline and be heeding the wisdom of Proverbs.

I don’t agree, but nor do I think you are sinning, or that you don’t believe Scripture or anything like that if you hold that position. I would see that disagreement as a secondary, gray issue. I think Proverbs teaches that the rod is an effective tool that parents are wise to use, but the larger, more important point Solomon is making is simply “train your children in the way they should go.”

Hopefully that clarifies my position. As to the age of the earth, or prophecies regarding Heaven…also gray areas I think. There are parts of Revelation that are clearly not literal. They are allegory or something else. I am young earth but actually don’t think it matters all that much as long as Adam maintains his position as the first human. I think either position can be defended exegetically quite well.

In sum:

“Once again, do you believe that I am not following Scripture by refusing to use a literal rod to hit my kids?”

Only if you think Solomon teaches that, and you refuse anyway. If you don’t think he advocates using a literal rod/paddle but simply is referring to any form of discipline than you are following Scripture as you understand it…which is all any of us can do. I would follow it by including “the rod” in the various forms of discipline I incorporate.

“Do you believe the “rod”passages require us to use a rod? Do you believe that this is a commandment?

Do you believe that those who use a literal “rod”, whatever that may be, are correct?

And, since we are getting literal, what do you mean by a rod? They didn’t have plumbing lines back then.”

I believe when Solomon says “rod” he means “rod.” A thin, straight piece of material. I think the Scripture doesn’t mention size, or what type of material etc for the obvious reason that there was no need to.

Parents who beat, or hit, or maul their kids are not doing so because they are trying to obey the Bible. They may justify what they are doing with a lame appeal to Proverbs, but Timothy McVeigh appealed to Scripture too…if your child is bruised or worse it is because a parent gave in to anger, not because they were lovingly disciplining their child.

“Whether we should spare the rod or not shouldn’t depend on our view of Solomon at all since Proverbs is a book of teaching that is nowhere else in Scripture rebutted, and is the Word of God, not Solomon. ”

We are told in Colossians not to exasperate (frustrate) our children. Much of what we have been discussing here would frustrate a child easily. While I want my child to “fear me”, I do not want to viewed as a tyrant. My goal is for their hearts to change not just get the right outward behavior. There must be a mix of love, grace and discipline.

the “law” of love applies to our children, also.

For me .. and I believe a LOT of Jews, the whole bit about ‘not frustrating/exasperating your children’ means that spanking /hitting a child is OUT period. I cannot imagine any child not being exasperated by their parents. Not feeling angry. Which is why the Jews tend NOT to spank/hit as they would be causing their child to sin.

I would like to pose a question. If you believe the Bible does tell you that you must spank your children and you feel it is your duty to do so – what about the really docile, well behaved child? Does this mean that .. just because you believe you ‘have to spank a child’ you will spank it … for it’s really minor infractions ?? Just to ‘get your spanking quota in’ as it were as you know there aren’t going to be ‘big crimes’ for your child to get spanked? Does it mean that … the day before their .. 18th birthday you spank that really well behaved child that you haven’t needed to hit, just to ‘obey’ that commandment? After all – in the Bible it doesn’t seem to tell you for what you should hit them … does it ???

As for hitting babies, I seriously would have these people jailed… if I think spanking a child is a heinous crime.. I believe you will understand just how sick and angered I feel about hitting a tiny one…

Dee I would be the first one at the police station, let alone straight onto this blog, if I thought for one second any church I was visiting promoted hitting children or babies.

Even growing up in the UK, I NEVER ever heard a vicar/minister mention spanking/hitting/corporal punishment for children. The only ever mentioned being kind and gentle to them .. as Jesus was.

I live in a country now where hitting a child, at home, street or at school etc is illegal. And I thank God for it.

Lydia,

sweet….I’m going to have a coming out party for you and any other atheists on this blog .. just let me know when!!

🙂