Verse 13-14<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n13 Withhold not correction from the child;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nFor thou will beat him with the rod, and he will not die.<\/span><\/span>
\n14 Thou beatest him with the rod,<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nAnd with it deliverest his soul from hell.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThe exhortation, 13a, presupposes that education by word and deed is a duty devolving on the father and the teacher with regard to the child. In 13b, \ufb3b\u05d9 is in any case the relative conjunction. The conclusion does not mean: so will he not fall under death (destruction), as Luther also would have it, after Deuteronomy 19:21, for this thought certainly follows Proverbs 23:14; nor after Proverbs 19:18: so may the stroke not be one whereof he dies, for then the author ought to have written \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\ufb4a\u05de\u05d9\u05ea\ufb40\ufb35; but: he will not die of it, i.e., only strike if he has deserved it, thou needest not fear; the bitter medicine will be beneficial to him, not deadly. The \u05d0\ufb4a\u05d4 standing before the double clause, Proverbs 23:14, means that he who administers corporal chastisement to the child, saves him spiritually<\/b>; for \u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc does not refer to death in general, but to death falling upon a man before his time, and in his sins, vid., Proverbs 15:24, cf. Proverbs 8:26.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>See also CCC 2223:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\nParents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery \u2013 the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the \u201cmaterial and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.\u201d Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them:<\/span><\/p>\n He who loves his son will not spare the rod. . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him.<\/span><\/p>\n Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n[someone said that quoting Bible passages wasn\u2019t \u201crelevant\u201d]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIt certainly is for Catholics and other Christians, when claims are being made that something is intrinsically wicked<\/i>, that God and the Bible recommend<\/i>. Something ain\u2019t connecting there, and we must make our choice.<\/span><\/p>\n[someone asked if the New Testament referred to \u201cthe rod\u201d]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nNo, but there is about discipline and chastisement, which in Proverbs is connected with physical punishment, so indirectly it does condone it. The OT is Scripture, too, so we can\u2019t just dismiss it as irrelevant. I quoted the Bible to contradict claims that spanking is wicked. The Bible says it is righteous. That\u2019s a stark contrast. But you simply spiritualize the passage away, in time-honored fashion.<\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s not a matter of commanding<\/i> it, but rather, whether it is a moral<\/i> method of discipline. The Bible says it is<\/i>. Game, set, match.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nFor Scripture to say, \u201c<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from Sheol\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>(Proverbs 23:13-14) is almost<\/i> a command, since what good parent doesn\u2019t want to save his child\u2019s life from Sheol (by implication, also hell, which was a far less developed doctrine in Solomon\u2019s time)?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nI never said it was a command. What I argued was that Scripture shows corporal punishment as moral<\/i>; therefore, those who claim it is intrinsically immoral <\/i>(for those of us who believe in faith in the inspiration of Scripture) are dead-wrong.<\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nYour side claimed that it was self-evident from the beginning, and that there was no other side. But I have Scripture and longstanding moral tradition on my side and you don\u2019t.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n[one person said she was \u201cfree\u201d to not spank]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nAbsolutely. And I am also free from being classified as a child abuser because I follow biblical recommendations in the raising of children.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n[one person said she didn\u2019t call me a \u201cchild abuser\u201d] <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nFirst of all, I said, \u201cclassified as a child abuser\u201d; not called<\/i> one. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nYou endorsed the article at the top; the title of which is \u201cSpanking isn\u2019t parenting; it\u2019s child abuse.\u201d Therefore, by straightforward deduction you implied that spankers are child abusers.<\/p>\n
I didn\u2019t see any anti-spanking person make a disclaimer over against the article: that they didn\u2019t agree it was child abuse: what wicked people like me and [Name] do (may have missed it tho, since I didn\u2019t read every comment).<\/p>\n
\u201cHitting\u201d has the connotation (I think) of being struck on the head, whereas \u201cspanking\u201d clearly has the connotation of \u201cbutt.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nThus, when you are trying to overturn longstanding tradition, you use words that have connotations that you wish to get across for the purpose of your goal: to delegitimize the practice. \u201cHitting\u201d sounds violent; sounds like wife abuse, etc.<\/p>\n
Movements always do this. The pro-aborts did; the pro-\u201cgay marriage\u201d manipulates language with silly terms like \u201chomophobe\u201d (which means, absurdly, \u201cfear of sameness\u201d).<\/p>\n
The first goal of any movement is to control the terminology and language. That is more than half the battle won, right there, because people more often respond impulsively and emotionally (based on associations), rather than reflectively and reasonably. Serious dialogue tries to get beyond slogans and stereotypes and manipulation of language, to the substance<\/i>.<\/p>\n
[a person said she was a teacher and heard many stories of kids being \u201chit\u201d or abused, etc.]\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nYes, and you\u2019re naturally gonna hear the horror stories. It\u2019s just human nature. You\u2019re gonna hear a hundred stories about \u201cmy dad beat <\/i>me\u201d (where it is clearly abuse<\/i>: hit on the head, etc.). You\u2019re not gonna hear nearly as much the success stories: \u201cmy parents loved me enough to swat my behind once in a while and then explain it was for my good, for discipline.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nTherefore, since you hear mostly horror stories, you fallaciously conclude that all spanking is a species of abuse, and oppose it.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s the demonization of opponents that ends all constructive discussion. I don\u2019t demonize anti-spanking advocates (anymore than I would, say, a pacifist, who is also mistaken). They have the best of intentions and mean well. I sincerely disagree with them and think they are dead-wrong, for reasons I have explained. Doesn\u2019t make them wicked; makes them (I believe) wrong<\/i> on this issue.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I think a factor in this that is important to recognize is that many of us struggle a lot with things like a temper, anger, a controlling nature, passion, impatience. Or we may have been truly abused as a child (beaten, not merely spanked on the butt). Those things make it tough to spank in the right way.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIn my paper on the topic I made it clear that if one struggled with any of those and couldn\u2019t spank in the proper way, that they shouldn\u2019t do it at all<\/i>. Let the other <\/i>parent do it. If the other parent has the same problems, then better to not do it<\/i> (because it will likely be done wrongly<\/i>) and to find an alternative.<\/p>\n
But none of that means no one <\/i>can do it. Human nature is such that there will be so many people who can\u2019t do certain things. Some men are womanizers; doesn\u2019t mean all<\/i> men are. Some women are \u201cloose\u201d etc. Doesn\u2019t mean all<\/i> women are. Some people hate homosexuals. Doesn\u2019t mean that every<\/i> person who thinks homosexual acts are sinful hates them as people.<\/p>\n
Thus, some folks don\u2019t know how to spank properly (with control and love and only the best of motives). The solution to that is not to conclude that all spanking is wicked because some don\u2019t know how to do it. It is to advise the particular folks who can\u2019t do it, to not do it.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t think this is rocket science at all. But it has become such an emotional issue, with all the hot-button associations of wicked or alcoholic fathers, etc. or people like this football payer, that it is hardly able to be discussed rationally anymore.<\/p>\n
[someone argued that spanking was never necessary ever. She brought forward as evidence, her 12yo who is wonderful, etc. and claimed that this is because she was never spanked. Then she contended that spanking is a manifestation of power and domination, and equated it with spousal abuse.]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s just more fallacies. If a child is \u201cgentle, kind, obedient\u201d it is most likely due to prior temperament (the type that doesn\u2019t require spanking in the first place). I know, because we had one like that, and three who were not like that (i.e., as small kids). It\u2019s the different temperaments. The strong-willed two-year-old likely won\u2019t respond to much else, in cases of outright obstinacy.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nLike I said, I\u2019ll stack my four kids (now 23, 21, almost 18 and almost 13) up against anyone\u2019s in the world. Well-behaved, polite, considerate of others, serve others in many ways, active in church and youth groups, completely orthodox, never got in any trouble with the law, never drank, never did drugs, don\u2019t swear, don\u2019t look at pornography or watch garbage movies or listen to filthy lyrics in music, treat women with respect, great work ethic, chaste before marriage, go on mission trips all the time, great grades in school (my son in college has gotten all A\u2019s over two years). Everyone testifies to it.<\/p>\n
They are that way because they were loved <\/i>and taught the right values and morals. A rare swat on the butt has absolutely nothing to do with anything, except for the discipline needed at the time. And they were nurtured with love right afterwards to make sure that they understood this was loving discipline, not some sort of idiotic retribution or domination or the parents\u2019 tantrum.<\/p>\n
It doesn\u2019t [equate with \u201caggressiveness\u201d and \u201coverpowering\u201d behavior] if it is explained <\/i>at the time (as we always did). We didn\u2019t sit there and say, \u201cyou know, I just spanked you because I\u2019m a mean bastard who likes to see children cry and suffer and likes to get my way by violence and force.\u201d We explained, \u201cdo you know why<\/i> you were spanked? You did x<\/i> wrong, and left us no other recourse. We did it because we love you and don\u2019t want you to go down a wrong path and suffer for it in your life.\u201d And hugs and reassurance with that . . . <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIf that is \u201caggressive and overpowering\u201d then we speak two different languages and have vastly different definitions of many things.<\/p>\n
I absolutely hated<\/i> to spank. It was used only as the absolute last resort for young kids below the age of reason (up to maybe 5 or 6). As soon as they had sufficient reason we used other punishments like deprivation of a toy or grounding or not going outside, etc.<\/p>\n
I did it because I thought it was right and necessary, not because I loved it and got some charge of being powerful and dominating. These stereotypes are highly insulting and equally absurd.<\/p>\n
[it was said that the thread was merely about sharing alternatives to spanking, and that PMs were coming in, resonating with that message]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nSome parents do<\/i> do the bad things, of course. No one is denying that; only denying that it is intrinsically wicked and that all who use it are these moral and mental morons.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIt\u2019s not<\/i> just about alternatives because of the sweeping, insulting language being used. If it was just about that, you wouldn\u2019t have to condemn those of us who use it: starting with the idiotic article at the top: equating all of us with child abusers.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nI agree with alternatives in most <\/i>cases: above the age of reason; in cases of non-obstinacy, in cases where the parent can\u2019t control their anger or were abused as a child (where it is known that they tend to pass that one) . . . there is significant agreement here, but it\u2019s the legalism and condemnation that is unacceptable.<\/p>\n
We spanked only very rarely: maybe 5-6 times for each child in their entire life. I think with our most compliant child it was only once or twice.<\/p>\n
[a person said she was happy no one used the \u201c<\/span><\/span><\/span>pejoratives\u201d I used (\u201cmoral and mental morons\u201d) ]<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nWhat\u2019s worse? Calling someone a moron or a child abuser? I\u2019d much rather be called a moron. Being called a child abuser is one of the two or three absolute worst things I can imagine anyone being called or classified as.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
![\"Spanking3\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2014\/09\/Spanking3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n