Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Emmisal

The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

1,043 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy

I wrote all the below and then thought i would just say this. i respect your way of discipling and educating IF it works for you and your family What annoys me is that you cannot accord my family the same right to use corporal punishment and then to produce exceptionally fine, law abiding and self disciplined children who are never angry or violent, and who include some highly educated young people ( a nuclear biologist and an environmental lawyer included. )

I understand your fears about uncontrolled violence being used to discipline children, but that is NOT what i am speaking of. Emotionally charged discipline cannot lead to self discipline and control, because it is modelling the wrong behaviour, but demonstrating self control in discipline CAN.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Oh dear. just when we are agreeing, you go off on corporal punishment again, Corporal punishment is highly effective in establishing the inner mental control and discipline required, so that a human being can recognise just what inner discipline is (how it feels and is created) and then can learn to apply it to themselves. The ability to control emotive responses like anger is essential in all humans and this must be taught to children.

It cant be done if a child is punished in anger, or by an adult lacking in their own emotional control . But, as i have said many times, my parents were never angry, or out of control in their lives, with ANYONE, (because they had learned inner discipline and control) and certainly never disciplined us if even a little upset.

For example my father never even raised his fist (or his voice) to ANY person, including his family, that i observed, in his entire life. In the nearly sixty years i knew him, i never once saw him angry, or out of control of his behaviour.

They would discuss the crime and punishment, go over the rules which had been broken, establish if we thought they were being fair (and given a chance to plead any extenuating circumstances) and then usually many hours AFTER the offence in the evening) the y would mete out the punishment. Sometimes it was immediate for effect like when my mum gave the girls a light whip with the horse whip because they refused to stop some really bad swea,ring or when she washed out my mouth with soap for a similar offence. BUT we learned just the opposite to what you claim corporal punishment might teach a child. We learned that love can be expressed through punishment for breaking rules, we learned this could be done in a non emotive and controlled way, and we learned our parents loved us so much they could bring themselves to do this. We learned that the punishment was for the offence, not the person and that we were loved, always, no matter what we did.

Two points Some people might be able to teach that inner mental control without punishment but it is rare to see that and second, there are dozens if not a hundred members of my extended family who have NEVER hit another person Who have never lost control of their temper, and who would never hit another person in anger, but who would use corporal punishment on their kids because the y have seen how well it works in their own loves. So corporal punishment given in love and without emotion is extremely effective in teaching people to learn how to control their behaviour as adults. It conditions you so you cant even consider stealing or doing other wrongs, let alone actually do them, because your mind and body, signal danger danger, even as you contemplate the thought.

For example i have never got angry with a person and lost control. I have never hit another person except in self defence( or to protect another), and i have never endangered anyone by losing control of my actions. Young males are only potentially lethal weapons BECAUSE no one has taught them full self discipline

Certainly as a young man i indulged in a lot of risky behaviour mostly in sports /recretional pursuits But nothing which endangered others because I might lose contrrol

. A father should be honoured and respected by his children (and so should a mother) In part this has to be earned . I had a very close and loving relationship with my parents all my life as did all my family At their funerals many people spoke of their character and leadership in the community as well. Using corporal punishment did nothing to reduce that love or respect, and in my case enhanced it. i would find it hard to respect a parent who did NOT act to do what was necessary to teach me self discipline and control. That might be giving me one good whack a week when deserved or it might involve self sacrifice, time and effort taken to teach and model good behaviour.

Because we learned these skills very early, we were given freedoms and responsibilities young people today rarely have, Including hunting, fishing, skin, diving, exploring sailing etc by ourselves as pre teens.

MW, they were your parents the most important people to you, and the last people you could make wrong, this I get, this I understand. That you loved and respect them is not a surprise. I loved my mom too, she was my mom. Yet, my mom was not the leading authority on the best way to raise a child, I would not take advice from either yours or mine, respect and honor doesn't mean repeating our parents mistakes. We want quality and that is get the job done with the least amount of harm, noone has to hit anyone to teach them.

And, I hear you, you were taught that it is okay to hit with horse whips and cane children, wash their mouths out wth soap, you see it as loving discipline and hold this as the gold standard in parenting and you even frame your counter citing as long as one hits in love it's optimal, you argue that the problem isn't using violence but how you use it and if only people got that dammit.....this what has gone wrong in your mind if only people used violence in love.....

MW, the abusive husband hits out of love, the parent hits out of love. You do not see that the very thing you advocate, violence, (as a response/ reaction) is the problem.

On one post, you claim you care for abused woman and children and teach classes to give them better tools to protect themselves and their children, then the next post you are touting the great advantages of corporal punishment as long as you don't hit in anger, and keep a smile on your face like good ole mom did, it's not really violence. Hog wash, the problem is you do not see the distinction, or the question that is raised, the problem is whether using violence or not is harmful and what harm this can do--not that you smile using it.

Did your parents love you I am sure they did, did they do their best with what they knew, I don't know what they had available to them so I can't answer this, was it common in your generation to beat kids as a way to raise them, yes, was it the best way, could they have done better the answer is a resounding, yes.

I am not sure what you have issue with, I don't respect or honor anyone who uses violence to teach a child how to be civil or behave. I think violence is only appropriate in situations of self defence and even then only to dismantle the offender.

For example: Kids pick up the language used most often around them, at home and from their peers, and especially if a parent uses it (slang / cuss words ) are no exception. I agree, as kids other then with peers, it is best as a kid to not use swear words in the company of adults and to present oneself in a way that is respectful and mature. And if any adults are using cuss words discourage them to use them around any kids. We knew it was part of the landscape as kids and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with swear words they can be appropriate in any context ( as a teacher you know this) but as a mainstay of ones vocabulary when you are 10, it is probably not a good idea.

No caning, no horse whipping, no washing anyone's mouth out with lye (soap). This reaction/ response even if it is poker faced and calm would be considered abusive and inept parenting skills by today's standards. My gosh trying to poison your child with soap ( lye is in soap) is serious in today's world. Using a horse whip on a horse nowadays is a problem ley alone on a kid for swearing.

By the way my kids have never stolen anything, have not been in trouble with the law, ever. Of course they were kids and went through the growing pangs of childhood, but I didn't have a bunch of problems with them at all, in fact, I enjoyed them. I also parented, now a days we parent our kids, we guide them, we prepare for what is ahead and we know because we too were once kids. We don't pretend our kids are anything else but inexperienced and new to the adult scene. It was common in our generation for the parents to not keep an eye on the kids, let them loose in a the world, ( raise themselves ) and only offer input if they broke the rules. We no longer do this.

To say your parents were not perfect and could have done a better job in some areas is not a lack of respect, and my kids will and do say the same about me. They have been very open, I appreciate the feedback, it doesn't offend me, in fact, I have always asked for feedback the whole journey as I wanted to give my best and this attitude leant to my kids wanting to be their best in return. A win win. These are not my ideas though they are the finest ideas from psychology and child experts available to anyone.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

MW, they were your parents the most important people to you, and the last people you could make wrong, this I get, this I understand. That you loved and respect them is not a surprise. I loved my mom too, she was my mom. Yet, my mom was not the leading authority on the best way to raise a child, I would not take advice from either yours or mine, respect and honor doesn't mean repeating our parents mistakes. We want quality and that is get the job done with the least amount of harm, noone has to hit anyone to teach them.

And, I hear you, you were taught that it is okay to hit with horse whips and cane children, wash their mouths out wth soap, you see it as loving discipline and hold this as the gold standard in parenting and you even frame your counter citing as long as one hits in love it's optimal, you argue that the problem isn't using violence but how you use it and if only people got that dammit.....this what has gone wrong in your mind if only people used violence in love.....

MW, the abusive husband hits out of love, the parent hits out of love. You do not see that the very thing you advocate, violence, (as a response/ reaction) is the problem.

On one post, you claim you care for abused woman and children and teach classes to give them better tools to protect themselves and their children, then the next post you are touting the great advantages of corporal punishment as long as you don't hit in anger, and keep a smile on your face like good ole mom did, it's not really violence. Hog wash, the problem is you do not see the distinction, or the question that is raised, the problem is whether using violence or not is harmful and what harm this can do--not that you smile using it.

Did your parents love you I am sure they did, did they do their best with what they knew, I don't know what they had available to them so I can't answer this, was it common in your generation to beat kids as a way to raise them, yes, was it the best way, could they have done better the answer is a resounding, yes.

I am not sure what you have issue with, I don't respect or honor anyone who uses violence to teach a child how to be civil or behave. I think violence is only appropriate in situations of self defence and even then only to dismantle the offender.

For example: Kids pick up the language used most often around them, at home and from their peers, and especially if a parent uses it (slang / cuss words ) are no exception. I agree, as kids other then with peers, it is best as a kid to not use swear words in the company of adults and to present oneself in a way that is respectful and mature. And if any adults are using cuss words discourage them to use them around any kids. We knew it was part of the landscape as kids and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with swear words they can be appropriate in any context ( as a teacher you know this) but as a mainstay of ones vocabulary when you are 10, it is probably not a good idea.

No caning, no horse whipping, no washing anyone's mouth out with lye (soap). This reaction/ response even if it is poker faced and calm would be considered abusive and inept parenting skills by today's standards. My gosh trying to poison your child with soap ( lye is in soap) is serious in today's world. Using a horse whip on a horse nowadays is a problem ley alone on a kid for swearing.

By the way my kids have never stolen anything, have not been in trouble with the law, ever. Of course they were kids and went through the growing pangs of childhood, but I didn't have a bunch of problems with them at all, in fact, I enjoyed them. I also parented, now a days we parent our kids, we guide them, we prepare for what is ahead and we know because we too were once kids. We don't pretend our kids are anything else but inexperienced and new to the adult scene. It was common in our generation for the parents to not keep an eye on the kids, let them loose in a the world, ( raise themselves ) and only offer input if they broke the rules. We no longer do this.

To say your parents were not perfect and could have done a better job in some areas is not a lack of respect, and my kids will and do say the same about me. They have been very open, I appreciate the feedback, it doesn't offend me, in fact, I have always asked for feedback the whole journey as I wanted to give my best and this attitude leant to my kids wanting to be their best in return. A win win. These are not my ideas though they are the finest ideas from psychology and child experts available to anyone.

You sound like a very good and communicative parent. Teenage Podo is very jealous :w00t:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

MW, they were your parents the most important people to you, and the last people you could make wrong, this I get, this I understand. That you loved and respect them is not a surprise. I loved my mom too, she was my mom. Yet, my mom was not the leading authority on the best way to raise a child, I would not take advice from either yours or mine, respect and honor doesn't mean repeating our parents mistakes. We want quality and that is get the job done with the least amount of harm, noone has to hit anyone to teach them.

And, I hear you, you were taught that it is okay to hit with horse whips and cane children, wash their mouths out wth soap, you see it as loving discipline and hold this as the gold standard in parenting and you even frame your counter citing as long as one hits in love it's optimal, you argue that the problem isn't using violence but how you use it and if only people got that dammit.....this what has gone wrong in your mind if only people used violence in love.....

MW, the abusive husband hits out of love, the parent hits out of love. You do not see that the very thing you advocate, violence, (as a response/ reaction) is the problem.

On one post, you claim you care for abused woman and children and teach classes to give them better tools to protect themselves and their children, then the next post you are touting the great advantages of corporal punishment as long as you don't hit in anger, and keep a smile on your face like good ole mom did, it's not really violence. Hog wash, the problem is you do not see the distinction, or the question that is raised, the problem is whether using violence or not is harmful and what harm this can do--not that you smile using it.

Did your parents love you I am sure they did, did they do their best with what they knew, I don't know what they had available to them so I can't answer this, was it common in your generation to beat kids as a way to raise them, yes, was it the best way, could they have done better the answer is a resounding, yes.

I am not sure what you have issue with, I don't respect or honor anyone who uses violence to teach a child how to be civil or behave. I think violence is only appropriate in situations of self defence and even then only to dismantle the offender.

For example: Kids pick up the language used most often around them, at home and from their peers, and especially if a parent uses it (slang / cuss words ) are no exception. I agree, as kids other then with peers, it is best as a kid to not use swear words in the company of adults and to present oneself in a way that is respectful and mature. And if any adults are using cuss words discourage them to use them around any kids. We knew it was part of the landscape as kids and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with swear words they can be appropriate in any context ( as a teacher you know this) but as a mainstay of ones vocabulary when you are 10, it is probably not a good idea.

No caning, no horse whipping, no washing anyone's mouth out with lye (soap). This reaction/ response even if it is poker faced and calm would be considered abusive and inept parenting skills by today's standards. My gosh trying to poison your child with soap ( lye is in soap) is serious in today's world. Using a horse whip on a horse nowadays is a problem ley alone on a kid for swearing.

By the way my kids have never stolen anything, have not been in trouble with the law, ever. Of course they were kids and went through the growing pangs of childhood, but I didn't have a bunch of problems with them at all, in fact, I enjoyed them. I also parented, now a days we parent our kids, we guide them, we prepare for what is ahead and we know because we too were once kids. We don't pretend our kids are anything else but inexperienced and new to the adult scene. It was common in our generation for the parents to not keep an eye on the kids, let them loose in a the world, ( raise themselves ) and only offer input if they broke the rules. We no longer do this.

To say your parents were not perfect and could have done a better job in some areas is not a lack of respect, and my kids will and do say the same about me. They have been very open, I appreciate the feedback, it doesn't offend me, in fact, I have always asked for feedback the whole journey as I wanted to give my best and this attitude leant to my kids wanting to be their best in return. A win win. These are not my ideas though they are the finest ideas from psychology and child experts available to anyone.

It really is no good discussing this with you

It is not about me not wanting my parents to be wrong They WERE right to bring us up as they did. The evidence of dozens of lives demonstrates this to be so.

You have an absolutist view which is not only wrong but can be dangerous because it can lead peole NOT to teach their children self discipline at all . Without using corporal punishment it is a long hard road to do this and many parents either don't have the time the skills or the energy to invest. Some cant even be bothered trying

I have realised for some time that your relation ship with your parents led you to a different attitude to parenting and parental authority. I could, and did, trust mine with my life They were almost never wrong i, anything they believed or taught, and again this is demonstrated by their relationship with ALL those around them.

And, I hear you, you were taught that it is okay to hit with horse whips and cane children, wash their mouths out wth soap, you see it as loving discipline and hold this as the gold standard in parenting and you even frame your counter citing as long as one hits in love it's optimal, you argue that the problem isn't using violence but how you use it and if only people got that dammit.....this what has gone wrong in your mind if only people used violence in love.....

MW, the abusive husband hits out of love, the parent hits out of love. You do not see that the very thing you advocate, violence, (as a response/ reaction) is the problem.

Not the gold standard but a very effective one which produced ALL pretty decent human beings in terms of behaviour, and citizenship, and abilty to love. I am a pragmatist with little attachment to emotional belief about right and wrong and a lot to demonstrable outcomes If something works to achieve good outcomes then it is right, not wrong. " Violence" is not inherently wrong. It is the use, purpose and form which "violence" takes which makes it either right or wrong

And yes if more people realised this the world would b a better place. Never hitting a child does not do anything to guarantee it will not become violent, and it might make it unable to control the inner violence it contains which is created by many other biological and environmental causes and life experiences. For example combine a lack of self discipline with a sense of right or privilege and you have a potentially violent person who will use violence to achieve self gratification. .

My parents hit "out of love" There was no problem and no ill effect

Abuse is by nature different (despite some people arguing that any time you corporally punish a child it is abuse . It s different because it has a different outcome and probably this is because of the way abusive violence is used and applied. (eg as an expression of authoritative power and control, to gratify the abuser) It will tend to create anger hate or fear in the recipient and later negative outcomes My parents discipline never produced any of those outcomes, only love and respect ,and wisdom.

SUch violence is a proactive reasoned tool, not a response or a reaction

but its no good arguing this with you

You are correct that modern standards have changed So to unfortunately has the quality of parenting and consequently the necessary socialisation of children.

Modern children tend to be feral and out of control compared with those of my generation. They tend to be self entitled and think the world owes them something . Violence and sexual assault is higher Drug use is a real problem Obviously a generation or two with out corporal punishment has not improved outcomes in children (and yes i know the general decay in family and society has played a part but that is rather my point ) If modern values are right why do they contribute to the decay of a society (yes i know that is a classic old fellas response but it is also statistically and evidentially true) If fewer children are being corporally punished, why is there more violence among the young.

And i am not criticising your parenting. Based on outcomes it seems to work But my parents methods worked just as well. So how come you don't approve.? It has to be because a confused understanding of the nature and purpose of "violence " in human societies. "Violence" is just a tool. Its use is legitimate or illegitimate depending on its purpose, context and outcomes.

On one post, you claim you care for abused woman and children and teach classes to give them better tools to protect themselves and their children, then the next post you are touting the great advantages of corporal punishment as long as you don't hit in anger, and keep a smile on your face like good ole mom did, it's not really violence. Hog wash, the problem is you do not see the distinction, or the question that is raised, the problem is whether using violence or not is harmful and what harm this can do--not that you smile using it.

The problem is that YOU do not see the distinction. My mum wasn't smiling when she disciplined us, if anything she was crying. My point was that neither parent ever lost their temper or disciplined in anger. Neither of my parents EVER raised a fist to us or swore at us, in our lives. This epitomises your inability (perhaps because of your own relationship with your mother ) to comprehend the nature of my parents love for us The point is that "violence" is NOT inherently harmful. The effect depends on the purpose and nature of the violence used I keep putting violence in inverted commas because violence has such a negative connotation. To be honest I just don't see my parents actions as violent because, to me, violence has an emotional cause and will provoke an emotional response If i hit my wife because she makes me angry that is violence. If I legally kill an armed intruder, that is not violence in the same negative sense even though some might see it as a more violent act.

Ps why attach the terms "good ole" to my mother. Isn't that classic stereotyping ? My mum was good but only in her thirties during this period. I personalty find that a derogatory appellation and possibly deliberately so in an attempt to negate the abilities and intelligence of my mother. I cant be certain as it is an Americanism But isn't good ole boy a derogatory term

Never mind. iI looked it up. I can be both positive or negative, depending on usage, and i cant be sure which you meant. .

Bit like "wally", really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Are you on about floggin the kids again Walkies ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Are you on about floggin the kids again Walkies ?

Yup! Like god, it's all about the personal evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

It really is no good discussing this with you

We say the same about you.

It is not about me not wanting my parents to be wrong They WERE right to bring us up as they did. The evidence of dozens of lives demonstrates this to be so.

You have an absolutist view which is not only wrong but can be dangerous because it can lead peole NOT to teach their children self discipline at all . Without using corporal punishment it is a long hard road to do this and many parents either don't have the time the skills or the energy to invest. Some cant even be bothered trying

I can't see this absolutist view in Sherapy. Guess I'm blind.

I have realised for some time that your relation ship with your parents led you to a different attitude to parenting and parental authority. I could, and did, trust mine with my life They were almost never wrong i, anything they believed or taught, and again this is demonstrated by their relationship with ALL those around them.

My parents were wrong a lot. Even though I trusted them I knew, like they did, that they didn't have all the right answers.

Not the gold standard but a very effective one which produced ALL pretty decent human beings in terms of behaviour, and citizenship, and abilty to love. I am a pragmatist with little attachment to emotional belief about right and wrong and a lot to demonstrable outcomes If something works to achieve good outcomes then it is right, not wrong. " Violence" is not inherently wrong. It is the use, purpose and form which "violence" takes which makes it either right or wrong

You know who else is emotionally detached, sociopaths. Violence is wrong.

And yes if more people realised this the world would b a better place. Never hitting a child does not do anything to guarantee it will not become violent, and it might make it unable to control the inner violence it contains which is created by many other biological and environmental causes and life experiences. For example combine a lack of self discipline with a sense of right or privilege and you have a potentially violent person who will use violence to achieve self gratification. .

​Nothing guarantees anything. Beat a child and s/he will resent you. The key word is to train self discipline. House work is good for this. Whenever my kids got out of line I made them do the chore they hated the most. I've had little trouble from my kids.

My parents hit "out of love" There was no problem and no ill effect

I highly doubt there was no effect on your psyche. Considering how much you don't want to feel. Cutting out your emotion, basically become an autonomous conscious.

Abuse is by nature different (despite some people arguing that any time you corporally punish a child it is abuse . It s different because it has a different outcome and probably this is because of the way abusive violence is used and applied. (eg as an expression of authoritative power and control, to gratify the abuser) It will tend to create anger hate or fear in the recipient and later negative outcomes My parents discipline never produced any of those outcomes, only love and respect ,and wisdom.

There is a fine line. A very fine line. It's a very thin one. I think your parents were as misguided as you are.

SUch violence is a proactive reasoned tool, not a response or a reaction

Do as I say or get the hell beat out of you. Sounds like a domineering egomaniac control freak.

but its no good arguing this with you

You are correct that modern standards have changed So to unfortunately has the quality of parenting and consequently the necessary socialisation of children.

Modern children tend to be feral and out of control compared with those of my generation. They tend to be self entitled and think the world owes them something . Violence and sexual assault is higher Drug use is a real problem Obviously a generation or two with out corporal punishment has not improved outcomes in children (and yes i know the general decay in family and society has played a part but that is rather my point ) If modern values are right why do they contribute to the decay of a society (yes i know that is a classic old fellas response but it is also statistically and evidentially true) If fewer children are being corporally punished, why is there more violence among the young.

I doubt you actually know modern children. The one's I've know want to same thing, love and attention. A positive constructive guide in life. Not someone who punishes them for everything they do wrong.

And i am not criticising your parenting. Based on outcomes it seems to work But my parents methods worked just as well. So how come you don't approve.? It has to be because a confused understanding of the nature and purpose of "violence " in human societies. "Violence" is just a tool. Its use is legitimate or illegitimate depending on its purpose, context and outcomes.

Yes you are and you know it.

The problem is that YOU do not see the distinction. My mum wasn't smiling when she disciplined us, if anything she was crying. My point was that neither parent ever lost their temper or disciplined in anger. Neither of my parents EVER raised a fist to us or swore at us, in our lives. This epitomises your inability (perhaps because of your own relationship with your mother ) to comprehend the nature of my parents love for us The point is that "violence" is NOT inherently harmful. The effect depends on the purpose and nature of the violence used I keep putting violence in inverted commas because violence has such a negative connotation. To be honest I just don't see my parents actions as violent because, to me, violence has an emotional cause and will provoke an emotional response If i hit my wife because she makes me angry that is violence. If I legally kill an armed intruder, that is not violence in the same negative sense even though some might see it as a more violent act.

I see contradictions in your stories. Raise a fist doesn't mean it has to be a fist. A belt, phone cord, or a cane can easily take it's place. Violence is harmful, either physically and/or mentally. You can dress it up however you want but violence is violence. If I kill a man because I want to it's murder, if it's in self defense it's still murder, it's just 'justified'.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

It really is no good discussing this with you

It is not about me not wanting my parents to be wrong They WERE right to bring us up as they did. The evidence of dozens of lives demonstrates this to be so.

You have an absolutist view which is not only wrong but can be dangerous because it can lead peole NOT to teach their children self discipline at all . Without using corporal punishment it is a long hard road to do this and many parents either don't have the time the skills or the energy to invest. Some cant even be bothered trying

I have realised for some time that your relation ship with your parents led you to a different attitude to parenting and parental authority. I could, and did, trust mine with my life They were almost never wrong i, anything they believed or taught, and again this is demonstrated by their relationship with ALL those around them.

And, I hear you, you were taught that it is okay to hit with horse whips and cane children, wash their mouths out wth soap, you see it as loving discipline and hold this as the gold standard in parenting and you even frame your counter citing as long as one hits in love it's optimal, you argue that the problem isn't using violence but how you use it and if only people got that dammit.....this what has gone wrong in your mind if only people used violence in love.....

MW, the abusive husband hits out of love, the parent hits out of love. You do not see that the very thing you advocate, violence, (as a response/ reaction) is the problem.

Not the gold standard but a very effective one which produced ALL pretty decent human beings in terms of behaviour, and citizenship, and abilty to love. I am a pragmatist with little attachment to emotional belief about right and wrong and a lot to demonstrable outcomes If something works to achieve good outcomes then it is right, not wrong. " Violence" is not inherently wrong. It is the use, purpose and form which "violence" takes which makes it either right or wrong

And yes if more people realised this the world would b a better place. Never hitting a child does not do anything to guarantee it will not become violent, and it might make it unable to control the inner violence it contains which is created by many other biological and environmental causes and life experiences. For example combine a lack of self discipline with a sense of right or privilege and you have a potentially violent person who will use violence to achieve self gratification. .

My parents hit "out of love" There was no problem and no ill effect

Abuse is by nature different (despite some people arguing that any time you corporally punish a child it is abuse . It s different because it has a different outcome and probably this is because of the way abusive violence is used and applied. (eg as an exp<b></b>ression of authoritative power and control, to gratify the abuser) It will tend to create anger hate or fear in the recipient and later negative outcomes My parents discipline never produced any of those outcomes, only love and respect ,and wisdom.

SUch violence is a proactive reasoned tool, not a response or a reaction

but its no good arguing this with you

You are correct that modern standards have changed So to unfortunately has the quality of parenting and consequently the necessary socialisation of children.

Modern children tend to be feral and out of control compared with those of my generation. They tend to be self entitled and think the world owes them something . Violence and sexual assault is higher Drug use is a real problem Obviously a generation or two with out corporal punishment has not improved outcomes in children (and yes i know the general decay in family and society has played a part but that is rather my point ) If modern values are right why do they contribute to the decay of a society (yes i know that is a classic old fellas response but it is also statistically and evidentially true) If fewer children are being corporally punished, why is there more violence among the young.

And i am not criticising your parenting. Based on outcomes it seems to work But my parents methods worked just as well. So how come you don't approve.? It has to be because a confused understanding of the nature and purpose of "violence " in human societies. "Violence" is just a tool. Its use is legitimate or illegitimate depending on its purpose, context and outcomes.

On one post, you claim you care for abused woman and children and teach classes to give them better tools to protect themselves and their children, then the next post you are touting the great advantages of corporal punishment as long as you don't hit in anger, and keep a smile on your face like good ole mom did, it's not really violence. Hog wash, the problem is you do not see the distinction, or the question that is raised, the problem is whether using violence or not is harmful and what harm this can do--not that you smile using it.

The problem is that YOU do not see the distinction. My mum wasn't smiling when she disciplined us, if anything she was crying. My point was that neither parent ever lost their temper or disciplined in anger. Neither of my parents EVER raised a fist to us or swore at us, in our lives. This epitomises your inability (perhaps because of your own relationship with your mother ) to comprehend the nature of my parents love for us The point is that "violence" is NOT inherently harmful. The effect depends on the purpose and nature of the violence used I keep putting violence in inverted commas because violence has such a negative connotation. To be honest I just don't see my parents actions as violent because, to me, violence has an emotional cause and will provoke an emotional response If i hit my wife because she makes me angry that is violence. If I legally kill an armed intruder, that is not violence in the same negative sense even though some might see it as a more violent act.

Ps why attach the terms "good ole" to my mother. Isn't that classic stereotyping ? My mum was good but only in her thirties during this period. I personalty find that a derogatory appellation and possibly deliberately so in an attempt to negate the abilities and intelligence of my mother. I cant be certain as it is an Americanism But isn't good ole boy a derogatory term

Never mind. iI looked it up. I can be both positive or negative, depending on usage, and i cant be sure which you meant. .

Bit like "wally", really.

It really is no good discussing this with you

It is not about me not wanting my parents to be wrong They WERE right to bring us up as they did. The evidence of dozens of lives demonstrates this to be so.

You have an absolutist view which is not only wrong but can be dangerous because it can lead peole NOT to teach their children self discipline at all . Without using corporal punishment it is a long hard road to do this and many parents either don't have the time the skills or the energy to invest. Some cant even be bothered trying

I have realised for some time that your relation ship with your parents led you to a different attitude to parenting and parental authority. I could, and did, trust mine with my life They were almost never wrong i, anything they believed or taught, and again this is demonstrated by their relationship with ALL those around them.

And, I hear you, you were taught that it is okay to hit with horse whips and cane children, wash their mouths out wth soap, you see it as loving discipline and hold this as the gold standard in parenting and you even frame your counter citing as long as one hits in love it's optimal, you argue that the problem isn't using violence but how you use it and if only people got that dammit.....this what has gone wrong in your mind if only people used violence in love.....

MW, the abusive husband hits out of love, the parent hits out of love. You do not see that the very thing you advocate, violence, (as a response/ reaction) is the problem.

Not the gold standard but a very effective one which produced ALL pretty decent human beings in terms of behaviour, and citizenship, and abilty to love. I am a pragmatist with little attachment to emotional belief about right and wrong and a lot to demonstrable outcomes If something works to achieve good outcomes then it is right, not wrong. " Violence" is not inherently wrong. It is the use, purpose and form which "violence" takes which makes it either right or wrong

And yes if more people realised this the world would b a better place. Never hitting a child does not do anything to guarantee it will not become violent, and it might make it unable to control the inner violence it contains which is created by many other biological and environmental causes and life experiences. For example combine a lack of self discipline with a sense of right or privilege and you have a potentially violent person who will use violence to achieve self gratification. .

My parents hit "out of love" There was no problem and no ill effect

Abuse is by nature different (despite some people arguing that any time you corporally punish a child it is abuse . It s different because it has a different outcome and probably this is because of the way abusive violence is used and applied. (eg as an exp<b></b>ression of authoritative power and control, to gratify the abuser) It will tend to create anger hate or fear in the recipient and later negative outcomes My parents discipline never produced any of those outcomes, only love and respect ,and wisdom.

SUch violence is a proactive reasoned tool, not a response or a reaction

but its no good arguing this with you

You are correct that modern standards have changed So to unfortunately has the quality of parenting and consequently the necessary socialisation of children.

Modern children tend to be feral and out of control compared with those of my generation. They tend to be self entitled and think the world owes them something . Violence and sexual assault is higher Drug use is a real problem Obviously a generation or two with out corporal punishment has not improved outcomes in children (and yes i know the general decay in family and society has played a part but that is rather my point ) If modern values are right why do they contribute to the decay of a society (yes i know that is a classic old fellas response but it is also statistically and evidentially true) If fewer children are being corporally punished, why is there more violence among the young.

And i am not criticising your parenting. Based on outcomes it seems to work But my parents methods worked just as well. So how come you don't approve.? It has to be because a confused understanding of the nature and purpose of "violence " in human societies. "Violence" is just a tool. Its use is legitimate or illegitimate depending on its purpose, context and outcomes.

On one post, you claim you care for abused woman and children and teach classes to give them better tools to protect themselves and their children, then the next post you are touting the great advantages of corporal punishment as long as you don't hit in anger, and keep a smile on your face like good ole mom did, it's not really violence. Hog wash, the problem is you do not see the distinction, or the question that is raised, the problem is whether using violence or not is harmful and what harm this can do--not that you smile using it.

The problem is that YOU do not see the distinction. My mum wasn't smiling when she disciplined us, if anything she was crying. My point was that neither parent ever lost their temper or disciplined in anger. Neither of my parents EVER raised a fist to us or swore at us, in our lives. This epitomises your inability (perhaps because of your own relationship with your mother ) to comprehend the nature of my parents love for us The point is that "violence" is NOT inherently harmful. The effect depends on the purpose and nature of the violence used I keep putting violence in inverted commas because violence has such a negative connotation. To be honest I just don't see my parents actions as violent because, to me, violence has an emotional cause and will provoke an emotional response If i hit my wife because she makes me angry that is violence. If I legally kill an armed intruder, that is not violence in the same negative sense even though some might see it as a more violent act.

Ps why attach the terms "good ole" to my mother. Isn't that classic stereotyping ? My mum was good but only in her thirties during this period. I personalty find that a derogatory appellation and possibly deliberately so in an attempt to negate the abilities and intelligence of my mother. I cant be certain as it is an Americanism But isn't good ole boy a derogatory term

Never mind. iI looked it up. I can be both positive or negative, depending on usage, and i cant be sure which you meant. .

Bit like "wally", really.

No, MW we both agree that kids should be parented and self disciplined, where I disagree is using the method of violence or corporal punishment, I disagree that kids are feral, therefore must be beat; I disagree that to cane and horse whip it is non violent, I disagree that it is humane and the best way to teach a child to have self discipline is by caning and horse whipping them. and I disagree that the better parent is the one who uses these methods. I lived both realities, I was abused ( similar to you) and the non violent household of ( my grandma) that I was moved too saved my life. If it hadn't been for my grandmother and the state I would have went the path of my sisters. (And the thing is we were a upper middle class family).

That you are okay with your childhood is your right, I leave you to it, it is not my call. I only can give an opinion for what ever it's worth

fact, It it not the consensus of child protective services or our educational system to recommend caning or horse whipping as a viable alternative to raising children.

And you know this too.

And, on that note we will just have to agree to disagree.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Because of the way you formatted your post i cant quote it, but a few points.

Like sherapyy you have a different understanding of the nature and use of violence. No, violence is NOT always wrong. It depends on the context and purpose of the violence employed

I am not a socio path My point was that, many people base values on emotional responses ("oh dear its just so wrong to ever hurt a child" i base mine on pragmatic judgements and measurable results.

My parents were never wrong (in my life time of experience.) Maybe that is one reason we see things differently They were intelligent, rational, well adjusted, human beings .

There was no negative effect on my psyche. I don't "cut out" all emotions or emotional based reactions, only destructive, damaging, and harmful ones, which produce destructive results That's been my aim since i was able to think. It is in part the social responsibility taught to me by my parents to be a safe and constructive citizen but also my understanding from early childhood about how our emotions and thoughts can control our behaviour unless we control them through conscious awareness and discipline. .

.It is not ego which makes a parent want the best for their child, and to try and give them the skills needed to be successful and safe in a society. It s love The results show my parents did a brilliant job compared with most in society. Plus it is the role of parents to set rules/limits on behaviour, and teach a child how and why these need to be obeyed. This skill is then transferred into the wider society and acceptance of ITS rules.

LOL few people would have had close contact with as many young people as i have, including as a teacher and as people depending on me for their care It is true that i have had EXTRA contact with the damaged and hurting children of the modern world than most and so am more awre of and sensitive to their needs than of undamaged ones. . I've only ever used physical force on a child to protect it, or protect another child/person /animal from it, but the ones I've cared for at home are so damaged they need more love and rebuilding than the average child .They still need restrictions on their behaviour but i never had much trouble with quit strict house rules because none ever wanted to be kicked out .

I don't argue that children desperately need love and attention Corporal punishment can be a legitimate expression of both. I would argue that failure to discipline a child who needs it, and thus failing teach it how to control its behaviour in future, is failing to love them, or care about their future.

No, I am not criticising Sherapy's parenting. I have praised it before and if it is effective it meets my pragmatism test. MY complaint is her refusal to accept OTHER ways of parenting as effective and legitimate In doing so she continues to denigrate/demean and belittle, both my parents as providers of the discipline, and me as a recipient of it. In her mind that has to be the case to legitimise her own belief.

When i said my parents never raised a fist in anger I meant tha t as the minimum standard. They never raised anything else IN ANGER , ever. Thus we never feared them or worried we might be harmed . We learned that behaviour always has consequences and tha t rules need to be obeyed Both served us all exceptionally well But the most telling lesson and the greatest benefit to us in life, was, never act in anger, and always retain conscious control of your behaviour..

You are wrong in your last point

legally (where i live) morally and ethically I am able to defend my self by using appropriate force. In the case of an armed intruder in my house, where i might reasonably fear for my life or that of my family, I can kill the intruder without worrying about legal action And i certainly wouldn't have any moral qualms.

That is what i mean about the context of violence. It is sometimes right, rather than wrong. I once dragged a screaming, struggling woman, fully clothed from the surf when she tried to kill herself. I was quite "violent in controlling her. In my morality that was a correct use of violence with a good outcome.

I once had to wrestle a 15 year old girl onto a bed and restrain her by sitting on her until she calmed down after she tried to kill her sister over a minor argument. Again an appropriate and good use of violence. I chased after an intruder ('peeping tom") with an aboriginal club, while my wife called the police. I was completely in control of my emotions, but as it turned out, the police caught him a little later, trying to get into a neighbour's house..

In teaching, a number of times i have had to use force to stop one student hurting another, although i try other methods, like getting between them, first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

No, MW we both agree that kids should be parented and self disciplined, where I disagree is using the method of violence or corporal punishment, I disagree that kids are feral, therefore must be beat; I disagree that to cane and horse whip it is non violent, I disagree that it is humane and the best way to teach a child to have self discipline is by caning and horse whipping them. and I disagree that the better parent is the one who uses these methods. I lived both realities, I was abused ( similar to you) and the non violent household of ( my grandma) that I was moved too saved my life. If it hadn't been for my grandmother and the state I would have went the path of my sisters. (And the thing is we were a upper middle class family).

That you are okay with your childhood is your right, I leave you to it, it is not my call. I only can give an opinion for what ever it's worth

fact, It it not the consensus of child protective services or our educational system to recommend caning or horse whipping as a viable alternative to raising children.

And you know this too.

And, on that note we will just have to agree to disagree.

It is ok for you to disagree.

Just don't try to impose your life experiences on me. I was never abused as a child, Never felt abused, then or at any time in my life. was never afraid of my parents and never felt anything but love for them. Never once had any desire to leave home and remained there until i left to go teaching. I was loved cared for and protected. My parents fulfilled ALL the responsibilities of parenthood i am sorry yours did not but don't use that as an excuse to pass judgement on others.

I don't advocate caning or horse whipping either, despite it working for us I DO advocate the absolute necessity to teach children self control and self discipline by the most effective means possible. This will vary from child to child and family to family. I dont have aright to force you to use corporal punishment, but you don't have a right to deny others its use.

You probably never had to care for a 14 year old girl who wanted to go out and have sex and had to be physically prevented from doing so . i would love to be a fly on the wall, and watch you talk your way out of that scenario . Or would you let her go (the police will take no effective action if you call them )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I need to start ignoring you again. You're more than 3 sheets into the wind.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

It is ok for you to disagree.

Just don't try to impose your life experiences on me. I was never abused as a child, Never felt abused, then or at any time in my life. was never afraid of my parents and never felt anything but love for them. Never once had any desire to leave home and remained there until i left to go teaching. I was loved cared for and protected. My parents fulfilled ALL the responsibilities of parenthood i am sorry yours did not but don't use that as an excuse to pass judgement on others.

I don't advocate caning or horse whipping either, despite it working for us I DO advocate the absolute necessity to teach children self control and self discipline by the most effective means possible. This will vary from child to child and family to family. I dont have aright to force you to use corporal punishment, but you don't have a right to deny others its use.

You probably never had to care for a 14 year old girl who wanted to go out and have sex and had to be physically prevented from doing so . i would love to be a fly on the wall, and watch you talk your way out of that scenario . Or would you let her go (the police will take no effective action if you call them )

Again no social service program or child protection agency advocates that there are different ways to raise a child based on " the child" and the family. There are specific ways and they recommend you use them. I legitimately went through the system; I know how it works. My grandparents used what they were taught. Had you have done the same you too would have been taught how to best serve this girl besides physically restraining her. You would have had a strategy in place to account for, understand and constructively prevent this type of behaviour and IMO you were not suited to work with troubled kids (not an insult) you have said a few posts above you wouldn't invest the time into putting forth the effort it would take to be a quality guide, and the key for this is the willingness to put in the time. I think they would have weeded you out in the interview process had you have done things on the up and up.

We have your own testimony that anyone you took in was on your own dime based on you thinking you knew what was best, based off your parents teachings.

I would have never done this without guidance from a professional.

I do think it was abuse being caned and horse whipped, but you do not and in the end your life is on you to define, not me. That is fair to me.

My intent is not to convince you that your childhood was abusive, my intent is to clarify your views and offer informed alternatives.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

My point was that, many people base values on emotional responses ("oh dear its just so wrong to ever hurt a child" i base mine on pragmatic judgements and measurable results.

People base their values, as in ethics or morals, not around just emotional responses, but around 'harm' and its prevention, which sits right in the nucleus of most ethical systems. Harm such as in a phrase that in most contexts is abhorrent: 'hurt a child'; we don't typically as a matter of normal, legal punishment 'hurt' even our worst criminals, but it's a good idea for kids? You don't need to answer that, you've probably already covered it above somewhere and I'm reassured by you clarifying you don't advocate whipping and caning. Regardless, 'pragmatic judgments and measurable results' doesn't really sound like the language of 'values', its sounds like the language of cold business, whose 'values' are much different and don't have much intersection with the 'values' I think you guys are talking about.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

People base their values, as in ethics or morals, not around just emotional responses, but around 'harm' and its prevention, which sits right in the nucleus of most ethical systems. Harm such as in a phrase that in most contexts is abhorrent: 'hurt a child'; we don't typically as a matter of normal, legal punishment 'hurt' even our worst criminals, but it's a good idea for kids? You don't need to answer that, you've probably already covered it above somewhere and I'm reassured by you clarifying you don't advocate whipping and caning. Regardless, 'pragmatic judgments and measurable results' doesn't really sound like the language of 'values', its sounds like the language of cold business, whose 'values' are much different and don't have much intersection with the 'values' I think you guys are talking about.

And, Pragmatism (philosophically) is nothing like he is saying. A true pragmatism would see their actions as affecting and representing the whole.

"Inquiry that does not achieve coordination of behavior is not inquiry but simply wordplay”(Rorty, 7), for Rorty, the pragmatic tradition calls for the end of anything as the sole purveyor of truth doling ideas out as commandments, instead positions can assume a supporting role in the quest towards freedom, by giving feedback to a society so it can create new options for its future, with that being said Pragmatism has come a long way in defrosting the highly regarded (fixed) philosophical climate and in doing so has made it constructive and shows how our actions, our institutions, and our criticisms can hang out together in the largest sense as opposed to converging at the drinking fountain of truth, one can now use philosophy to get at the truth to bring out the best for the given situation and cultivate strategies that are geared towards problem-solving and the betterment of all.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Sherapy I think you have a secret agenda to make me smarter. Because almost every post you make I end up looking something up. :nw:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Sherapy I think you have a secret agenda to make me smarter. Because almost every post you make I end up looking something up. :nw:

Aww thanks X, you humble me. :blush:

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Some of you have help me find enlightenment (Knowledge), other here have made me want to high five their face with a hammer.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

You sound like a very good and communicative parent. Teenage Podo is very jealous :w00t:

:blush: thank you for your kind words.

I love my boys and I am the one they can talk about anything even in their darkest hour too. I learned this from my grandmother and it was the most effective guidance I had as a teen. My grandparents took the time to understand the things I faced and I could discuss them openly, as a teenager I will honestly tell you it kept me a good person. I had support and wisdom to draw on instead of my own inexperience and other dumb ass peers. :w00t:

Honestly, I learn a lot about kids from my kids; I am honored they talk to me. :blush::innocent:

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Some of you have help me find enlightenment (Knowledge), other here have made me want to high five their face with a hammer.

Well it goes both ways, I learn a lot from you too. You are an incredibly bright and open-minded man. :clap::tu:

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seax

The problem of evil argument is an excellent argument and so far there isn't a good reason when it comes to justifying natural evil. Why not have a go at it, it read 'the problem of evil' and counter.

http://faculty.pierc...lem of Evil.pdf

Hello Sherapy,

An interesting chapter and thank you for posting that. Evil it an extremely complicated subject but at the same time relatively simple. Depending on the observers position would define or govern the explanation taken...and I might add the non-spiritual route will have difficulty with an explanation. Lets look at the two possible routes I believe to examine and try to understand evil.

First of all look at spirituality. If you believe in God and have studied or examined the history of evil it starts with a war in heaven. Lucifer wanted to being higher than God....thus you could say the first evil was ego. Lucifer decided to rebel against God and be worshiped but this in itself went against the very grain of the rules by the creator. Then he persuaded one third of the angels to join him in rebellion, so basically another original sin or evil....he mislead, lied to one third of the host....I draw attention to one third again as I mentioned in another post as being the number of man. Ultimately there is a war and he loses, but has a grudge and what better way to get back at God than to destroy his beloved creation...man. So from there Lucifer whose name will change to Satan (or adversary loosely translated). From there he mislead Eve in the garden of Eden and going on his followers to make a long story short....dirtied the gene pool by mating with daughters of man. Its in Genesis ...don't say much about it...it hits and moves on but more info is Enoch. So I'm going to cut this short and not write a book but you might say Evil is Satan's way to destroy God's creation and get even. This is the spiritual explanation...abbreviated.

Second explanation of evil. You could say there is no evil. It is in the eye of the beholder or a mental disorder. In my opinion it comes from selfishness of the person...not caring or recognizing the basic rights of everyone. We would all agree that child pornography is bad...a terrible taboo but recently I heard a psychiatrist uphold it on a news article. It is justified to appease and satisfy someone with a warped and distorted view. Genecide of people by other human beings...someone is always trying to be the tough kid on the block so everyone will kneel down to them. Here man defines good and evil, based upon personal preference and agenda; it's like pleasure is gained by the destruction of God's creation...like rebellion.

What makes a human being do terrible things to other human beings? This is not prevalent in the animal kingdom, it happens but not like it does in man, and it is getting worse. You have to ask yourself why. We have 10 simple and good rules to go by that even atheist should have no problem with...what's wrong with honor thy father and mother, thou shall not kill...or steal...you know them all. Yet there are those that don't want them where they are needed most...in our courthouses. My humble opinion, overall its not a mental disorder; evil is a rebellion against what works and enhances the position of man in this unknown universe.

seax :tu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

:clap: :clap: :nw: :nw: :tu::wub: beautifully put from one parent to another. Between you, BTE, and Psyche it seems that non-violent parenting is global. You are wonderful Dads you guys are tearing me up. :cry: :cry: :cry:

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

posting glitches

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Yup! Like god, it's all about the personal evidences.

Okay ... my personal evidence shows me the opposite .

Have you taken me off ignore again ... for no reason, when no one quoted me ?

Ignore .... pfffft .

I know you can resist me

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I need to start ignoring you again. You're more than 3 sheets into the wind.

What about that one where engineered DNA will stop a man beating his wife to death for not making the tea right , in the future, but not stop him beating her to death to get the insurance money ?

! :cry:

That's so wrong in so many different ways - that it led me to a ........ ' new realisation' about ' our friend' here.

One just has to understand what one is dealing with . It makes it a lot simpler and not want to rip your hair out as much :innocent:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

First of all look at spirituality. If you believe in God and have studied or examined the history of evil it starts with a war in heaven. Lucifer wanted to being higher than God....thus you could say the first evil was ego. Lucifer decided to rebel against God and be worshiped but this in itself went against the very grain of the rules by the creator. Then he persuaded one third of the angels to join him in rebellion, so basically another original sin or evil....he mislead, lied to one third of the host....I draw attention to one third again as I mentioned in another post as being the number of man. Ultimately there is a war and he loses, but has a grudge and what better way to get back at God than to destroy his beloved creation...man. So from there Lucifer whose name will change to Satan (or adversary loosely translated). From there he mislead Eve in the garden of Eden and going on his followers to make a long story short....dirtied the gene pool by mating with daughters of man. Its in Genesis ...don't say much about it...it hits and moves on but more info is Enoch. So I'm going to cut this short and not write a book but you might say Evil is Satan's way to destroy God's creation and get even. This is the spiritual explanation...abbreviated.

In Judaism no such event took place, no war in heaven, the serpent in Eden is just a serpent even referred to as an animal. Satan is working for God and is not once called Lucifer. In fact the verse speaking of Lucifer is directed at a mortal king.

God is guilty of nearly every charge you've made against Satan. His ego is so great he slaughters anyone that offends him.

BTW how is persuading, evil or sinful?

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Well it goes both ways, I learn a lot from you too. You are an incredibly bright and open-minded man. :clap::tu:

Hush now, you'll ruin my guise as a bumbling forum idiot. Can't have people thinking that I'm bright. Well maybe as bright as a burned out light bulb. :whistle:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.