If you believe this one channel's research, at least one person (John Brown the abolitionist) switched places with his child as a way to teach a lesson about Jesus’s intercession and the consequences of sin: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UghaZOr2umU.html
Are you sure ALL OF IT should be rejected? You might loose out on verses like: “2 BEAR YE ONE ANOTHER’S BURDENS, AND SO FULFIL THE LAW OF CHRIST.” “3 LET NOTHING BE DONE THROUGH STRIFE OR VAINGLORY; BUT IN LOWLINESS OF MIND LET EACH ESTEEM OTHER BETTER THAN THEMSELVES.” “34 A NEW COMMANDMENT I GIVE UNTO YOU, THAT YE LOVE ONE ANOTHER; AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, THAT YE ALSO LOVE ONE ANOTHER.35 BY THIS SHALL ALL MEN KNOW THAT YE ARE MY DISCIPLES, IF YE HAVE LOVE ONE TO ANOTHER.” etc. etc. etc. Wouldn't verses like that encourage "our better angels"? While I agree that one should not blindly follow biblical verses as absolute authorities, it is certainly acceptable to be inspired by what you find inspirational, don't you think? We don't have to throw the baby out with the bath-water .. is what I am saying 😁
@@marknieuweboer8099 I hadn't noticed that, apologies. It seems we do agree on that point. Although I don't have a specific opinion on what proportion of the Bible one should disregard, it seems the guiding principle should be to retain "that which is good" (whatever that may be). Or put differently: "judge them (the verses) by their fruits."
@@busylivingnotdying But what's good to some is bad to another. If you're homophobic, then those verses are amazing. The WHOLE bible needs to be tossed.
@@busylivingnotdying But doesn't picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow make it useless as a moral guide? Why not just live a good life and reject the 2000 year old mythology? Doesn't the act of being able to pick what are the "good parts" mean that you already have a core set of good values? All social animals have evolved a set of moral values. It allowed the group to succeed by helping each other. Wolves are a good example of this.
@andrewericjamesclark6808 you're the one strawmanning this. There are plenty of people who were *beaten* by their parents, myself included, and you can bet your ass that when I'm missing teeth, have a black eye, and purple bruises over my ribs and back that counts as a beating.
My dad dropped his jaw in awe when I mentioned him hitting us as kids. He said he never hit us, he merely _disciplined_ us. I said, yeah, you disciplined us by hitting us, be it the shoe, belt, spoon, paddle, hand, book, etc.
@@andrewericjamesclark6808 Sorry you were abused. It wasn't okay and shouldn't have happened. Hopefully you can get to a point where you're willing to recognize that.
Whenever somebody says "I was spanked as a child and it didn't do me any harm" I reply "Yes it did. It made you the sort of person who thinks it's ok to hit children"
It is interesting though, they the children of parents who did not spank have many more issues, including high anxiety and violence. There are people leaving the teaching profession because of it. I don't say cause and effect here, but it is strange that the people bashing the last generation, are raising a generation with even worse problems overall.
Proverbs 23:13 is by far the most explicit in endorsing beating your kids. The worst part is how when I brought this up to my parents, and then bring up how many studies done show that its effects on children are detrimental and outright harmful, including killing your empathy, they just dismiss it on the grounds of "for the bible tells me so". After all, who can compete with god-given wisdom? As foolish as it may sound? This is the danger in "higher than your ways" theology.
You'd think it would be easy to say, "Huh. Maybe the rod in question could represent discipline in general instead of literal corporeal punishment." Teaching children that their actions have consequences is a very important principle that you can easily read/negotiate out of that particular passage as "the Biblical message" without needing to read it literally as endorsing physical abuse. Edit for spelling
@@adamkotter6174 the thing to consider, again, is that there weren't scientific studies to demonstrate what we understand today, there also was a much more intense struggle for survival. Of course the methods will change, that doesn't mean that we can let those with issues go unaddressed.
Not to mention that it’s supposedly God _promising_ that if a parent beats their child with a rod, that child *_will not_** die.* That was a _promise from God_ in _His Word,_ right? So if even _one_ child, anywhere on Earth, at any time in history since Proverbs was written, has ever died as a direct result form being beaten with a rod, that’d mean that God’s promise *failed!* Right? _Right?_ I just did an Internet search and found several cases in _just_ the United States, _just_ this year, 2024, so far (I’m typing this in early June). In at least ½ of these cases, the parents did so *_specifically because_** they trusted God’s promise in Proverbs 23:13-14!* Remember, it only takes _one._ For those who stand by this passage, you’re *disproving* God, or at least His ability and/or willingness to keep His promises, or at the _very_ least that the Book of Proverbs really is every bit as much a part of His Word as any other book in the Bible. And if Proverbs shouldn’t be in there, if it’s _not_ really the Word of God, then how can you know what is and what isn’t in the whole Bible?
This also why I don't bother pointing this stuff out to adamant believers with no interest in changing their minds. Proving the Bible condones things like slavery and hitting your kids will sometimes just make them decide these are, in fact, good things that should be defended, and not reasons the Bible is fallible.
I really appreciate your commitment to truth even when it stands opposite your rhetorical goals. It would've been really easy to just ignore this video, but you pointed out and corrected misinformation even when the misinformation seemed to be on your side. Way to go!
The bible also calls for beating adults as corporeal punishment (up to 40 times in one go). In light of that, note also that proverbs 26:3 (in the video) does not talk specificially about a child but about a fool. I wonder if parents who are pro beating children are also pro being beaten themselves when having done sth wrong.
Considering what the Bible says in general, if on mand can beat his children, they can too beat his wife. Only a few decades ago it were allowed. I guess by fools It refered to submited people in general. Slave owners, employers.
Indeed. It is interesting that the one scenario where a lot of people still support violence as discipline is when it is exacted on the most vulnerable and innocent people we have...
Paul even mentions having gotten 39 stripes with the whip on multiple occasions (apparently they used a triple whip so if they hit him more than 39 times it would've been 42 and gone over the limit).
When my wife and I decided to have children we also decide to never hit them ever. I grew up with a father who very much believed in corporal punishment and I being the son that questioned everything was often the recipient of what were quit frankly beatings. I confronted him about the abuse a few years before he died. He never acknowledged it to me but he did to my wife.
"Why are you cryin over bein paddled?" "If you were sorry, you wouldn't have done it." "I'll give you something to cry about." "This hurts me more than it hurts you." "I'm doing this because I love you." Imagine these words not from a parent "disciplining" a child, but from a person abusing their partner. A lot less "righteous", ain't it?
Ummmm the “evangelical” view is dubious at best. Personally, I am the rod, I am the staff; my kids can reach out to me now or 60 years from now, and I will hold them up, support them, guide them, and comfort them, because that’s my job, it’s my sacred duty to them. But if people don’t understand that metaphor, then, I am the guardrail. They can come crashing into me, and I’ll absorb the hit. It’s my job to prevent harm, not to _be_ the harm. How’s that for a metaphor? Honestly, if you don’t know how to parent, learn, and learn quickly. Use current best-methods, and leave the old wive’s tales to rot in oblivion. Will I injure my kids? Pretty much certainly, especially the boys, especially when we do things of a questionable constructive or instructive nature. Stuff that falls under the category of ‘fun’. (And what the wife would categorise as ‘irresponsible, irrational, dangerous, and stupid’.) I contest those charges by saying I want them not to fear risk, but acknowledge that it exists, and sometimes it might hurt. They need to know how to choose their battles wisely, and what is and what isn’t the hill they would be willing to die on. That’s a whole metaphor salad, 👆🏼there. You guys choose the dressing.
I understand some amount of discipline, but i have never forgotten the unjust beatings from my father, and it still affects me to this day, both physically and mentally and emotionally.. (40 years later).
I'd heard the idea that the Bible meant the shepherd's rod of guidance, and embraced it. It's such a comforting interpretation. Thank you for setting this straight. In a course I'm taking at my church, we often grapple with difficult--rather, *uncomfortable* passages. We study cultural and historical contexts, textual analysis, etc. We read a lot from Collins and Yee, (among others). We react to the Scripture, sharing what delighted us, what disturbed us, how it pertains to our paths, our lives. But for all our analyses and interpretations, we agreed that at the end of the day we must face up to and deal with the hard truth that the Scripture indeed says what it does, whether we like it or not. We don't have to agree with it, we don't have to follow its practices--but we do have to acknowledge it is there. As with the passages about the rod.
I remember Peter Enns saying that the Bible is what God looks like when he lets his children tell the story about him. I later had an epiphany that the scriptures are what God looked like to cultures who believed that being a good parent means beating your children. "God is our father-of course he comes out in fury and wrath to smite the disobedient with destruction. Of course he will cast sinners into everlasting fire. What else is possible?" I still believe in God, but I no longer let ancient cultures steeped in violence dictate my conception of him.
The good Shepherd isn't good because he's comforting his sheep, the good shepherd is good because he won't even let one get away, thus meeting his quota when it's time for slaughter, as it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter... The Lord is my Shepherd I shall not want, he makes me lie... down in green pastures... convincing the other sheep that the narrow gate leads toward salvation, but those with eyes to see know another name for that narrow gate... we call it a livestock chute today. 🐑
Saying “you made me angry” followed by "look what you made me do to you" is always with the intent to justify mainly to oneself one’s own primitive retaliations qua violence or corresponding demands on undeserved respect. This behaviour hinges sadly on the but immoral assertion of perceived virtue in substitutional atonement placing another living being responsible for one's own enormities thus making them acceptable oblations.
Madea clearly uses those passages lol. Honestly, we as people can see that certain criminal punishments, like stoning, are archaic and move on from that. However, we can't seem to do the same for how we discipline those for which we provide care. But also, I was reminded that men used to be respected for spanking their wives around 70 years ago. Did we really have progress?
There was a lot spanking in old Hollywood movies. A B&W image of John Wayne - as a cowboy - gruffly throwing a woman across his lap to wallop her butt comes to mind. However, a lot of women loved the book, Fifty Shades of Grey, and there are online groups created by women who extol the virtues / delights of getting a good spanking. LOL
Good one! My understanding is that the rod is a masons measuring tool... Secondly but of excruciating importance is the vernacular. Every time the term discipline is used. It's meaning is souly instruction. To strike anything is punishment. These distinctions are quite well known. I surmise that the confusion between the two is quite intentional; as to, prevent detractions and unflattering appearances.
@lavieestlenfer Meeting my (future) wife and her family was a revelation. They relied on themselves and their prudent habits rather than a magical God, and did better than my religious family.
We're not judging our ancestors, since we don't know if their motivations were for good or for ill. They may have had only the best intentions. But we can indeed judge their actions because the damage was done nevertheless.
Yea my dad knew the correct meaning of the verse when he scrawled it onto a wooden kitchen spoon (right next the the smiley face he also added) with which he hit us. Called it Mr. Smiley.
Thank you for this analysis. But i have a question about one of the passages you quoted, specifically the one saying that the rod of discipline would spare the child from Sheol. My understanding is that, at this time, Sheol was the universal destination for the dead: there wasnt a heaven or hell. Everyone who died went to Sheol and rested there. My question is: from what was the rod supposed to save children? Was this saying it would prevent them from physical death, as it would impart wisdom that would provide for longevity? Because it would make no sense to save kids from the afterlife when everyone went there and there were no other alternative destinations.
A rod, like a gun or a sword, can be used for protection or for gratuitous violence. Her point is ridiculous. I agree with Dan, reject and move past--the entire Bible that is.
My granddad said his father would beat him near unconscious while quoting these very bible verses. My grandad said he had Christianity beaten out of him.
It's so disheartening to read all the abuse apologists making comments here about how good they turned out because they were abused. No folks, it did not teach you right from wrong. It taught you fear of getting caught. Remove the idea that no harm will come to you (or those you care about) from wrongdoing and you would quickly revert to that behavior. My mother was abusive. I never hit my children. They were taught why some things were wrong to do and why they should do what's right. There are natural consequences for bad behaviors that have nothing to do with instilling fear of pain. They're upstanding young adults now who have a good grasp on what's right and wrong. They've internalized moral behaviors and know that actions have consequences even if the consequences are not immediately apparent. My older siblings got in a shit ton of bad situations and even after acknowledging our mother's abuse, still try to justify it. I understand it's a coping mechanism, but we're all intelligent enough and educated enough to know better and they still do it.
I was beaten by my parents countless time when I misbehave. I never resent them, because I know that their intention is not to abuse me. Now I am walking on the right path because of the discipline. I am from non Christian family. Nowadays, instead of raising kids, parents are controlled by the kids.
Disciplining children is a very important part of raising kids. That discipline doesn't have to be a physical beating, however. Now that we have data to show that there are more effective ways to discipline children, I think we should use those methods instead. So, I'm agreeing with you with some caveats.
Pretty obvious what it means. The writer was probably a victim and a perpetrator of it himself so feels the need to justify it. Then others from that time on take the instruction like it’s divinely inspired. And true communication and connection to the next generation is spoiled for all time with the encouragement of stupidity, passivity and blind faith. Good on those who make it out from under that.
One of the problems with rehabilitating the verse in this way is that in the future this rehabilitation can be undone. The apologist of the future can say, for example, a _shevet_ on the back is for guidance, like the bridle is for a donkey. Corporal punishment is not only harmful, it's also ineffective. Don't do it.
I grew up JW. My dad would spank us but told us he hated doing it and would always hug us and tell us he loved us after. He felt that Jehovah told him that's what had to be done.
Did you turn out okay, did you hate your father? Do you lie in bed at night awake with flashbacks of how unloved u were? I bet the answer to all of those questions is yes, no, no.
@@mcgragor1 my dad was pretty awesome, when I began to disagree with the religion he actually spoke to me about it, I went full blown atheist apostate and he never judged me. He'd read my posts on a message board I frequented. He broke my heart a couple of times but the vast majority of my memories of him are good ones. Later in life he quit being an active JW and read a lot of christendoms stuff, even Ray Franz books. Near the end he got Alzheimer's and I'm not sure what he believed but I always knew he was doing the best that he could despite his religious heritage.
Thanks for sharing. It’s interesting to compare our experiences in the JWs. I too was spanked and spanked well, but never to the point of harm that could still be felt 10 minutes later. I don’t think spanking had any meaningful impact on my behaviour or thought process beyond the immediate time of said spanking. I don’t think it was a great method of discipline for me but I’m not bitter about it either, because like your dad my parents clearly loved me and really believed it was the way to go. Far more harrowing for me was the times I heard the sound of a slapped face in the Kingdom Hall or intense spankings in the second school. Sometimes they were at a level of intensity that even I as a child could tell was going way too far. And occasionally the kids were still clearly upset and in pain from the experience when the meeting finally ended. The ‘Elders’ did nothing to protect these vulnerable members of the congregation from this kind of abuse because of these verses from the bible. I’m very pleased to see organisational culture changing with the times in this regard, at least here in Australia. I wonder if old Geoffrey Jackson’s renegotiation with the text at the Australian Royal Commission had any direct impact on this?
@@mcgragor1 taught me so much, a lot about sports, we'd play football and basketball, taught me how cars work, I remember once a school bully was picking on me, he read be the Scripture by St Paul about being peaceable with all men as far as it depends upon you. He told me if this kid wouldn't be peaceable to punch him square in the nose, that way his eyes will water and you can finish him. One day he admitted to me that he regretted bringing people into the cult. He was fascinating. I truly wonder if his jw experience did him good or did him wrong. I think he mostly believed but wanted nothing to do with the organization or the governing body. Mom is still an active Witness so I keep track on them just in case they decide to try a Jim Jones maneuver.
Proverbs 22:15-“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.” The reason why this is a very good teaching is because if this sort of discipline is not shown a child then the parents will raise a heathen that does not fear correction and therefore will continue to do foolish things into their adulthood. Prisons are full of people who were not shown the rod of correction when they were children.
This is patently false. There are data driven studies of US prison and jail populations which show a majority of prisoners committed for violent crimes and robbery/theft were physically "disciplined" as children. Further studies show that those who are physically punished as children for wrongdoings do not internalize a sense of right and wrong. They only fear punishment and do not actually care about breaking the rules unless they are caught. A beaten child is merely taught fear and fear is not a lesson in morally correct behavior, it is a lesson that in order to avoid pain, a child can not be caught doing wrong. Children therefore learn to lie and hide things from their parents and teachers. It is a self-perpetuating cycle of power-based violence and deceit which has caused the majority of suffering throughout human history.
@@fnjesusfreak LOL, I don't follow Steven Anderson. But he is much closer to biblical truth than Dan is. Even though both him and Dan will likely agreed that s-d-mites cannot repent.
@@andrewericjamesclark6808 You have to ignore 1 Corinthians 6 to come to that conclusion. And for the other comment you just made on my own channel, you threw a Deuteronomy citation at me, to which I can throw a number of other citations of the Pauline Epistles back, showing you're just prooftexting.
can you explain the one about saving your children from Sheol? bc that almost sounds like some sort of salvation idea, but i thought those hadn't developed at that time.
So what's the deal with proverbs 23:14? It makes sense in a Christian context; you punish the child, they behave better, they avoid divine punishment in hell. As you discussed, physical punishment doesn't actually produce good outcomes but the story makes sense. On the other hand, if Sheol is there place of the dead with no distinction between the sinners and the righteous (which is what Bible scholars tell me it meant in that time period) what did that mean? Beat him to prevent him from dying? What's going on here? Could this text be evidence that the concept of punishment in the afterlife was around in the time the Psalms were written?
Proverbs 23.14 surprised me a bit as as I thought the general belief in the Hebrew Bible is that everyone goes to Sheol. Is this proverb considered a late one?
Good to know. Can you make a case for german freudian or jung psychoanalyst for being non homophic? as in france for instance convertion therapy are forbiden.
Well obviously this saying was meant for grandparents that they should spoil their grandkids with cookies and stuff. Spare the rod. Give ‘em cookies. Duh.
The “rod” is discipline. No discipline means a child with no guidance. Simple. We discipline our children because God disciplines us, we follow His example.
I agree with the conclusion, but the work that led to the conclusion won't be very helpful to the people who need to hear it. One comment mentioned *metaphor*, which is possible and permits the text to remain autoritative without demanding actual corporate punishment. Also, it can be observed at an obvious level that these texts say nothing about how many blows, how hard should the blows be, where they should be applied, etc. It is not at all evident how parents should put these texts into practice if they are not metaphorical.
Train up a child in the way they should go Everyone needs equal amounts of love AND Discipline . That is how u become a TRUE DISCIPLE OF CHRIST And carry your cross DAILY 🙏
Without any shadow of a doubt, she was trying really hard to make something acceptable. On the other hand, moving past it doesn't make any sense either; all the verses identified address serious issues in society and state that there needs to be measures taken to correct or accommodate those issues. A far more productive and beneficial way of looking at this would be to acknowledge that we have new methods of correction for the issues identified that are more capable that a shevet; but the issues identified are valid and need to be addressed. Yes, there are other documents that address these same issues, even from the same geographical location and time period; who cares? This is the document that millions of people say they read when they don't and listen to people who tell them what's in it. Deciding that millions of people should be dismissed is not beneficial.
No. The paraphrasing does retain the meaning. This is similar to the apologetics you find concerning slavery in the bible. 'Oh, it wasn't too bad [slavery], the slaves were just indentured servants who were treated quite well". The rules concerning slaves were not about humanity towards those slaves, it was "counseling' about property damage, even your own. Basically, if you badly beat your slave, you will injure or kill it, and so not have a good return at the slave market. It was not about humanitarianism at all. it was about owning other people. And sure, some slavery situations were better than others for the victims. Local slaves were treated better than foreign ones, especially slaves that were prizes of war and conquest. And we see among Roman nobility a "high value" educated Greek slave had considerable privileges, and owning such slaves was a matter of prestige among the noble families. it was not all that dissimilar to a modern rich person bragging about their mansion or luxury car. Like slaves, children were owned by their parents. This was not a stewardship and mentoring, but the imposition of power by the use of force. Comply, or you will be beaten. The child was being prepared to be an adult that would be used to the idea of comply, or face physical damage, perhaps death, if they disobeyed. normal fascism in other words. Or feudalism. With the feudal warlord at the top. God. It is a hierarchical system maintained by force. The hilarious thing is that the boss-boss [there may be kings or bishops or archangels whatever in between] is an imaginary sky daddy of enormous "power". Which poses a problem for the rebel who wants to rid himself of this tyranny. He not only has to overthrow 'city hall" as it were, but he has to do so at the hazard of his "soul". Not only rebel, but heretic. It was the perfect scam, because if you got everyone to believe in the imaginary sky daddy who would smite you and steal your soul,you will have perfect, totalitarian control. So habituation to believe was a key factor in maintaining this system. It was how you got men to go off in the millions in World War One, to fight, and DIE, for "God, King and Country". Stockholm syndrome on an industrial scale. Ironically, socialists, although they removed the god-king, found that they had to find a similar mechanism, by eliminating all opposition, and promoting the party leader and party to the status of a de-facto "diety'. And that is how we got communism. The cure was a bad as the disease. The best [but not perfect] solution to theistic tyranny and "atheistic"* tyranny is secular government. Strict secular government. Why strict? Well, it allows for religious freedom, but NOT special religious privilege. What would THAT look like? Basically, government should run along the lines of having secular arguments to determine government policy. Basically, government for humans by humans. Gods, if they exist or not, have no say in human affairs at the level of government. An example. The Death Penalty. Some religious folks are dead against it, and some religious folks approve of it. So whatever argument you have, it cannot be a religious one. So lets use some logic and a few facts. 1. Death is permanent, and irreversible. 2. The law can be flawed.Innocent people can be found guilty and guilty people can be found "not guilty" 3. So someone is found guilty of a "'capital crime" [a crime attracting the DP]. 4. Imprison them instead. It is reversible. if there was some flaw in the prosecution, and new evidence finds the convicted one is innocent of the crime, he/she can be released, and even compensated for the error. 5. Win-win. The community is kept safe, and there is a remedy for the falsely convicted. Not a whiff of religious argument at all, and understandable by all. So what about morals? Well, you can use basically the same secular process, based around a concept of human wellness. Humans are generally ethical, empathetic, and can be logical beings. And if you subscribe to the idea that morals are rules that emerge from the biological and cultural evolution of social animals, then you are 100% there.Morals are difficult, no matter what system you use. often, there is no "perfect" answer, but a set of horrible alternatives. You pick the least horrible. A bus driver on a mountain road. Do you kill the child by running over it, or do you kill the bus full of people by swerving off the road into the chasm below? Most people would answer: You kill the kid. This decision is not without cost, probably a lifetime of nightmares and regret. *atheist. Someone who finds that there is insufficient evidence to believe in any god. So by definition, an atheist can't logically be a god-hater. [It is like hating Superman, or Bugs Bunny]. Rational atheism dislikes what religious beliefs do, not the people who are religious. The PRC, which persecutes religious minorities, is neither atheistic or secular, strictly speaking. Not atheistic, because they hate religious people, and not secular because they forbid freedom of worship.
I agree with you, Dan, but I'm afraid that Sola scriptura readers wouldn't be happy with your response, either. The passages that they are taking literally, and out of context, are irrefutable. To them, anyone who says otherwise is either confused or lying.
You can discipline your children without ever laying a hand on them. Were you guys never grounded as a child and lost your TV, video games, ability to have friends over, etc? The passage means to not let your kids run wild or they will pay a price for it in adulthood. This is a very simple concept that didn’t need to be taken down this road.
3:08 Suggests that you shouldn’t beat children. Discipline out of anger is harmful. Only use proper discipline such as timeout & explaining what was wrong. 4:05
What if your child refuses to go into "time out"? Dan quotes studies, but there are others that say mild spanking was beneficial, and were the studies on Christian children only who had loving parents, or just on children in general getting beat by angry bad parents? Context, context, context, ...sigh. And before someone says my parents were Christians and it didn't help me, make sure you're being honest, a lot of folks say the believe this or that, but then just use it for their advantage when its needed, I'm talking about true loving parents that know how to discipline (even spanking) in love.
@@mcgragor1 There have been studies that show that, even when parents believe what they’re doing is helpful, it still causes mental harm. Being Christian doesn’t mean having everything you do automatically be good. Harm can still be done, & in this case, it always causes harm. It’s also not beneficial for them at all. If a child refuses to go into timeout, it doesn’t matter. You do it, anyway. There should be a designated area specifically for this. When especially young, parents should take them to this area & have them sit & think (as well as calm down), before returning to talk to them about it. If older, it’s less realistic to physically take them there. In this case, a timeout might no longer be an option (if they refuse to cooperate). If so, other restrictions can be applied, such as having less time to play video games, etc. Always reward good things the child does, & you can restrict things when they do things they shouldn’t. At all times, talk to them & help them understand- this is a very vital detail that allows them to grow, mature & make good decisions.
@@mcgragor1What studies have found hitting children to be beneficial? The studies people usually cite in support of hitting children are studies that have found it is still possible for a child to feel loved and to grow up to be a successful adult despite being beaten. I've never heard of a study that has actually found a benefit. Your suggestion that Christian parents are distinct from angry bad parents is absolutely absurd.
@@Tyler_Skye77 But some children will refuse to go into time out. That was the point. And there are studies that mild spanking is beneficial, the problem with these studies is you have to consider what they mean by spanking, are we talking beatings?? Also, these studies have not been done to my knowledge just on Christian households who also practice scripture in love, these things, discipline and love MUST work together. I know Christians who love their parents very much and say they were glad they got disciplined the way they did, it prepared them for life, and made them better people, whereas look at society today, look how unruly many children are, the evidence is clear, we need to go back to discipline, but it ALWYAS needs to be done in the proper loving context, whipping in anger in a nonliving home, will lead to studies that say its harmful, that is just common sense.
@@thomasdalton1508 If you think a loving Christian parent that showers love on their child and spanks will have the same effect as an angry parent who lashes out and spanks is absurd, then not much more I can say, but that defies common sense. The studies showed mild spanking depending on context might be beneficial, google it. Plus, consider the studies that have been done, were the children being questioned or followed from solid loving homes (religious) or not? It DOES make a difference and many "religious" or so called religious people use the bible to abuse their children, its about context it always is.
But the original creator is spot on when she says it’s used as an excuse for child abuse. I know of a case in 1985 where the children were physically abused, the mother did go to court and was disciplined to a point but was able to retain custody of her children and avoid jail by using this exact defense… All the times the Bible said you should hit your kid. And even though I was quite young at the time, I understood that that was effed up
Hey Dan . Been watching you videos for a minute. Have you answered this question yet? Is there a link between the beast in Revelation 13 and how YHVH describes himself in Hosea 13? Seems odd. Just curious on your take. Thank you!!
Bullshit! I am the third youngest of four brothers, I can speak for all of my brothers, not one of us have ever thieved, not one of are on drugs, we've all done it the "hard way" all own their own homes, all have their own family's and my brothers children are all good kids in their own professions, why? because we were brought up with a leather belt around our backsides by our ol' man who would've stripped the hide of us if he thought that "one of his sons was a common thief"the same way my brothers brought up their own children with a fatherly hand when it was needed, didn't hurt us! what it did do, is instill a set of values and moral code of conduct that we still adhere to this day, thanks pop!!
Hey Dan, thank you for your videos. I learned that critical scholars reject the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, the eternity of the Torah and more or less everything Orthodox Judaism teaches. Knowing about the antagonism is useful.
@@wisconsinengines It means Deuteronomy 29:28: "The hidden things belong to the Lord, our God, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah."
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 IMO, you are obviously suffering from some type of delusion, or inferiority complex, and your statement that "it is not within the purview of Gentiles to delve into the rest of Torah that is not about the Noahide code", is a mere repetition of the Xenophobic, or even racist doctrines / dogmas that you've learned from Jewish Orthodox sources. Wake up Noahide, you're just considered a (אֲחֻזָּה) possession / property in the Tanakh, who can be owned in perpetuity, and HaShem says that Israelite / Jewish masters can severely beat you, and as long as you don't die within a day or two, He [Hashem / God] is totally cool with that, (Vayikra / Lev 25:44-46, and Shemot / Exodus 21:20-21).
If you are going to reject this and move past it, you also have to reject and move past the entire idea of the Bible being a guide to moral behaviour. Anything else requires absurd and Orwellian mental contortions.
No not necessarily. There's no objective moral system. All moral systems are arbitrary at some point. There's nothing saying that a person has to use the entirety of the Bible to derive their moral system. The book itself might have claims like that in it, but as has been mentioned on the channel many times, the book has no authority. A person can do whatever they want with it. You can just choose to use parts of the book you find compelling and ignore others and claim those as the foundation of select moral principles. This really isn't any different than doing something like adopting a utilitarian ethic. In both cases you're choosing a standard and running with it. There are two major problems I can see with this approach. But neither of those has anything to do with the practice itself but rather the social ramifications of doing so. A person doesn't have to reject the entire Bible as a guide to moral behavior. But they should probably question whether or not there are better alternatives.
@@rainbowkrampus If you are picking and choosing which bits to follow, you might as well just ignore the Bible entirely and decide from scratch what your moral values are. The Bible isn't actually playing any part in the process, so why refer to it at all?
@@thomasdalton1508 "why refer to it at all?" I dunno. It's an arbitrary choice. What is attractive about utilitarianism to some and virtue ethics to others? It's all aesthetics at the end of the day. Someone finding appeal in using bits of a book to ground their moral ethic isn't really a problem in and of itself. No more so than any other options out there. We're all kinda inconsistent when it comes to morality. At a certain point we're just arguing about whose inconsistencies are more or less acceptable. Which, pass. It's like oppression olympics. Nothing is served by that kind of arguing. "The Bible isn't actually playing any part in the process" Well, no it is. Moral frameworks don't exist in a vacuum. All morality is a response to the social environment. The Bible contains elements of social thought. Like, we do this kind of thing without the Bible too. We can reason through the moral implications of all kinds of non-existent scenarios. We use hypotheticals. There's nothing about inventing hypotheticals which makes them better than using existing scenarios from some book. There's really nothing wrong about using the book in this way. At least, nothing that wouldn't condemn every other moral system out there in some aspect. There are problems with it, as mentioned, but not the mere act itself. Those problems are more like knock on effects.
