Why do people believe the bible?

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, Sherapy said:

Omg, this is what my sons say, no kidding. Thank you Hammie, it is the only thing that matters to me is that my sons felt respected and cherished.. I took having their trust as a great honor and parented in a way that demonstrated this. 

My mother, from when I was very young, always talked to me, listened to me. When  I was bad, or angry or hurt, she always asked me why and was genuinely interested in and wanted to hear my answers. My mother was a good communicator with a sweet and gentle disposition. Whenever I disappointed her, I bore the guilt of it with a quiet pain and strove not to do it again. It is parents without the skill or desire to communicate with their children that always fail them.

[+Sherapy]

16 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

My mother, from when I was very young, always talked to me, listened to me. When  I was bad, or angry or hurt, she always asked me why and was genuinely interested in and wanted to hear my answers. My mother was a good communicator with a sweet and gentle disposition. Whenever I disappointed her, I bore the guilt of it with a quiet pain and strove not to do it again. It is parents without the skill or desire to communicate with their children that always fail them.

I learned more from my boys how to best serve them then they did from me. Your mom was wise, the easiest way to raise caring kind sons is to nurture a quality relationship, noone really respects anyone that hits them all the time. Listening non judgementally is key, my sons could come to me with anything. As a momma, I wore many hats. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

I learned more from my boys how to best serve them then they did from me. Your mom was wise, the easiest way to raise caring kind sons is to nurture a quality relationship, noone really respects anyone that hits them.  Listening non judgementally is key, my sons could come to me with anything. As a momma, I wore many hats. 

Yes. Mother, Father, Husband, Wife--are not just nouns, they are verbs, too; they are something we do and some do them well, some not so well and some not at all.

[+Sherapy]

8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes. Mother, Father, Husband, Wife--are not just nouns, they are verbs, too; they are something we do and some do them well, some not so well and some not at all.

I love, the roles we take on are verbs.

I enjoyed being a mother. 

I am hoping for grandkids.  I literally can't wait. 

The closest to this these days is our sweet dog  Zenny. 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, joc said:

I don't believe.  What clinical trial did you participate in?  

Wait.   Never mind.  The entire premise is idiotic.  75% of pain?  How can you put a % on pain?  All you do on this forum is make idiotic statements and just expect other people to believe them.  Is there one person on this entire forum board who agrees with anything you say?  I'm sure in your mind there is.  I rest my case.

The experts do this(put the % on it)   But in hospital they ask you to rate your pain from 1 to 10 This is because pain management  depends  on individual patient's perception of pain.

Clinical trials have found that  different mental  attitudes from  faith, through meditation to  mental discipline can reduce pain on average by  50% . I had already been working on control of body by mind for over 40 years, so i did a bit better than average  

It is strange you know. You dont believe this yet it is now standard pain management in major western hospitals. It has developed over the past 15 years especially in response to the epidemic of opioid addiction to prescription pain killers and the deaths resulting from that.  

Chronic Pain Management for the Hospitalized Patient

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20655874,00.html#tricks-to-control-pain-1

https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/ease-your-pain-by-controlling-your-mind

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201501/neuroscientists-identify-how-mindset-alters-pain-perceptions

Last week, researchers at the University of Washington published a landmark study in TheJournal of the American Medical Association that showed training people with chronic low back pain in either mindfulness or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) works significantly better than medical care alone to reduce both their disability and pain-related suffering. The researchers randomly assigned 320 adults, ages 20 to 70, to either an eight-week class in one of these methods, or to “usual care.” The subjects who attended the classes saw significantly more improvement in their pain and disability than those receiving usual care — and this greater improvement was still evident a full year later, when the study ended.

Mindfulness training teaches us to be aware of, and accept, moment-to-moment physical sensations of discomfort, while letting go of our usual negative reactions. So instead of spending hours each day thinking about how much we hate our back pain, worrying about our prognosis, and seeking relief, we learn how to be with the pain — paying attention to how it actually feels at each moment and relaxing our tendency to tense up against it, while observing our worried or distressed thoughts and feelings coming and going.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/mind-back-pain-201605049517

Edited January 31, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

On 29/01/2018 at 6:26 AM, jmccr8 said:

not really, maybe you would like to review the comment that you responded to, I'm Convinced asked specifically about painkillers used during your dental work and you responded to something totally unrelated. I took the liberty of poking a little fun at your lack of comprehension.

 Well you have also demonstrated fictional thinking about how you and your wife would kill an intruder at your home as well as told us how you threatened a schoolmate with a sharp pencil and had the time to explain to him what you were going to do with the pencil and what the effects on him would be and I had pointed out at that time that such an event was highly unlikely and you would more than likely been spitting chicklets before you finished the first sentence of your lecture. I could list several other instances where you have represented fictional thinking here in the forum but feel that these two examples demonstrate my point sufficiently.

I am quite certain that many of your claimed achievements exist in your mind more so than in the actual real world as you have offered no supporting documentation for evaluation.

jmccr8

They are only fictional because the y never happened, but if the y had the i would have acted as planned How do I know ? Because in all similar situations which DID occur I acted as previously planned The idea is to have plan for almost any event which might occur in your life  It may never happen but when it does you will act as planned and prepared.and thus have a much higher chance of survival  The pencil was a real case A large 16 year old male student threatened to hit me and to beat me up. I pointed to the pencil and said you can try, but if you don't succeed a the first go I will grab that pencil and ram it into your brain  I wont go on to the other threats i made. And i was totally serious (i think ) if he had attacked me that s what i would have done  Blow getting beaten up by some big bully of a teenager who had already killed a taxi driver and was back a t school as part of his probation. The fact that i was totally serious with my threat had the desired effect.  The other two alternatives were to let him hit me or to run away Neither would have done much for my teaching future.  After that we got on quite ok     

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You say that your sisters refused to stop cussing while your mom repeatedly asked them not to, after a lifetime of moderate corporal punishment. I rest my case it was not effective in teaching respect as you claim. You then said your sister cusses a lot less than her friends, in other words she still cusses. Lol 

 

MW, my teen boys cussed, I knew they did, ( I was up on how boys were with their friends, because I was a stay at home mom) we discussed it with the boys and we set a boundary that while we could understand it was part of being teens they were to be mindful of any adults and never to cuss in their presence. 

I never had an issue, let alone blatant disrespect for my rules. 

 

Who said the girls had experienced any prior corporal punishment?  I know my brother and i were  punished for infractions physically but  i was already leaving home by the time my sisters became teenagers  As far as i know other methods were used with them normally, precisely because they were girls. 

It did teach respect. My sisters had more respect for mum after she had punished them, and they loved and respected her all her life.     Yes she cusses because of social pressure, but much less and more mildly than her friends, and she has to make herself cuss  On the other hand i don't swear at all  in public (ie with anyone at all to hear me) because of the way i was brought up and the environment  live in as an adult   Take stealing as another example You can condition a child not to do anything, but you can  also teach them the discipline to  resist temptations.  

So cussing wasn't an issue in your house, but maybe your boys weren't using the words my sisters were (it had become a competition to use the worst words they knew)  or maybe its not one of your core values, that your children not swear  )  Maybe you are simply more laissez faire  than my parents. The issue is really  around respect  and obedience,  where there is a house rule or expectation.

If i believe your boys were perfect, then there would be several reasons for this.  First, you home schooled them, and thus limited their exposure to other mores and values ( and language), and you had far more time with them than most parents, to impart your own rules and values .Second they may have been naturally obedient and compliant  (something none of us were, as we were always doing things which challenged  the rules, just as a part of growing up and learning)   

Edited January 31, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I learned more from my boys how to best serve them then they did from me. Your mom was wise, the easiest way to raise caring kind sons is to nurture a quality relationship, noone really respects anyone that hits them all the time. Listening non judgementally is key, my sons could come to me with anything. As a momma, I wore many hats. 

That is factually untrue  "All the time"  is imprecise but i was regularly  punished for breaking rules.   it taught me respect for my parents and also  illustrated their love for me, that they cared enough to punish inappropriate behaviours, even though it truly hurt them more than it did me as a child.

   As the studies i quoted said, it depends on how a child perceives the justice and fairness of a punishment, how they respond to it. I was never unfairly or unreasonably punished because my parents  would sit down firt and have a discussion  about the rules and whether i had broken them and why. Sometimes i had a reasonable justification for my actions and then i would not be punished .

You on the other hand, from  your accounts grew up with a dysfunctional mother who acted inconsistently  and from  an emotional base with great extremes   That must have made it very hard to accept any sort of punishment as fair or reasonable because it probably wasn't  I never saw my parents influenced by alcohol or out of control of their emotions. They never lost their temper, or acted out of hate, or anger, or envy, .frustration, or depression. They were always calm, rational, and logical.     

[I'mConvinced]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No good yelling a t me   

Oh I don't know, it finally got you to read it at least!

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The examples you gave generally go on to explain how minor physical discipline when administered in a loving and controlled way does no harm.

Please provide examples for this.  I couldn't find any supporting evidence for physical discipline and even minor stuff seems to cause harm.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My counter argument would be that in the absence of corporal punishments many parents fail to control and discipline their children, and worse, fail to install in them the cognitive mechanisms which allow self control, thus breeding children who cannot control their tempers, desires, or emotional responses.  This does far more harm to the community than any harm done by loving controlled discipline 

Please provide evidence to support your point.  It is my experience that the worst behaved children are usually those being grabbed, smacked and generally dragged around by their parents.  Violence breeds violence and this is well understood and clinically studied.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I accept  your case that you brought kids up without corporal punishment.

Good.  We use a reward based system.  If my child is well behaved they receive a reward in the shape of a sticker, this can be applied in several places around the house to remind them of their good behaviour.  Bad behaviour results in the removal of an allotted period of 'entertainment' which can be anything from screen time to snack treats etc.  This combined with explanation is all that is needed and follows on from the way I was treated as a child.  Non-violence begets non-violence it would seem.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

We never had any of those problem behaviours while they lived with us due to loving firm  discipline and  boundaries.

Which is as it should be, but you didn't hit them and this is most likely why you got respect back.

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That is factually untrue  "All the time"  is imprecise but i was regularly  punished for breaking rules.   it taught me respect for my parents and also  illustrated their love for me, that they cared enough to punish inappropriate behaviours, even though it truly hurt them more than it did me as a child.

   As the studies i quoted said, it depends on how a child perceives the justice and fairness of a punishment, how they respond to it. I was never unfairly or unreasonably punished because my parents  would sit down firt and have a discussion  about the rules and whether i had broken them and why. Sometimes i had a reasonable justification for my actions and then i would not be punished .

You on the other hand, from  your accounts grew up with a dysfunctional mother who acted inconsistently  and from  an emotional base with great extremes   That must have made it very hard to accept any sort of punishment as fair or reasonable because it probably wasn't  I never saw my parents influenced by alcohol or out of control of their emotions. They never lost their temper, or acted out of hate, or anger, or envy, .frustration, or depression. They were always calm, rational, and logical.     

If a parent is caning or horse whipping on a regular basis to teach respect then they are out of control of their emotions. 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Who said the girls had experienced any prior corporal punishment?  I know my brother and i were  punished for infractions physically but  i was already leaving home by the time my sisters became teenagers  As far as i know other methods were used with them normally, precisely because they were girls. 

It did teach respect. My sisters had more respect for mum after she had punished them, and they loved and respected her all her life.     Yes she cusses because of social pressure, but much less and more mildly than her friends, and she has to make herself cuss  On the other hand i don't swear at all  in public (ie with anyone at all to hear me) because of the way i was brought up and the environment  live in as an adult   Take stealing as another example You can condition a child not to do anything, but you can  also teach them the discipline to  resist temptations.  

So cussing wasn't an issue in your house, but maybe your boys weren't using the words my sisters were (it had become a competition to use the worst words they knew)  or maybe its not one of your core values, that your children not swear  )  Maybe you are simply more laissez faire  than my parents. The issue is really  around respect  and obedience,  where there is a house rule or expectation.

If i believe your boys were perfect, then there would be several reasons for this.  First, you home schooled them, and thus limited their exposure to other mores and values ( and language), and you had far more time with them than most parents, to impart your own rules and values .Second they may have been naturally obedient and compliant  (something none of us were, as we were always doing things which challenged  the rules, just as a part of growing up and learning)   

 

Disrespect towards the child dominos and shows itself in the child’s behavior, for ex: you said your mom warned your sisters to stop cussing and they refused, the issue isn’t that kids cuss, the issue that stands out is that you are claiming that  being caned and horse whipped taught respect yet, this isn’t bearing out. Respect would have been shown by stopping the cussing as your mom asked the first time. Respectful kids self correct either on their own or when prompted. Your mother warned them several times to stop and they refused. 

She used a horse whip to stop them. This is out of control, period. It is an act of violence. 

Violence is justifiable if ones life is being threatened. Do you understand the difference? 

My only point is to hilight this distinction, not to judge the action.

I recognize that this was how kids were raised then, now that we know better, we do better. 

As you said, in the end, you all loved and respected your mom, regardless. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Sherapy

[simplybill]

This long quote is from the webpage of a Christian organization. (I'm including the entire post because the webpage has a distracting op-art border. I've added the link in case the Moderators want to shorten my post.)

"What Does Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child Really Mean?

This week we hear again from psychologists Drs. David and Donna Lane who ask, "What's the meaning behind the proverbial saying, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child,' and does this Bible verse really advocate the beating of children?"

To begin with, this "verse," as quoted, isn't in the Bible. The closest verse like it is Proverbs 13:24 which reads, "Those who spare the rod, hate their children, but the one who loves their child disciplines them diligently." The question is, what was the use of the rod, and is it a directive or a metaphor?

The use of the word rod in this passage is the same one used in the 23rd Psalm where we read, "Your rod and your staff comfort me." We may rightfully assume that the rod of a shepherd is at least similar in type and use to that in the proverb.

I'll be the first to admit that I've heard variations of this proverb used by both clergy and laity alike to justify corporal punishment, but the use of the rod by shepherds did not generally include beating the sheep. The fact is, the rod and staff were the two implements utilized by professional shepherds of the day. The staff, which we are most familiar with, has a "crook" or "hook" on the end which was used to stop running sheep, help pull sheep up from rocky places when they'd fallen over, and so on. The rod was used when corralling the sheep to insure they went in the direction they were supposed to go. It wasn't used to prod or poke, but to direct along the length of the shaft.

Now, sheep were a valuable asset for the shepherd; indeed, without the sheep there would be no shepherd, so the flocks were well taken care of. In fact, a damaged or maimed sheep was a liability, since it was considered tamé, Hebrew for polluted or impure. This being the case, the shepherd who owned their sheep took good care of them and used the tools of their trade as they were meant to be used--to guide, to direct, and to teach (the literal meaning of discipline). However, there were scoundrels who were simply hired to look after the sheep. They had little concern over the welfare of the animals, so they would use their tools in whatever way suited them. These were the ones who might lose their tempers and beat a lamb with a rod just to demonstrate they were more powerful and could force their will upon it.

Children are no less valuable than sheep, and they learn better too! If a sheep is consistency directed, that is limited and taught, they will learn what is expected and generally conform. However, if they are beaten and broken they not only stop responding, but they look for every opportunity to escape--even when escape may mean grave danger.

To "spare the rod" is indicative of a parent who does not discipline their child, that is, to teach, guide, and direct. This is the parent who "hates their child." To spare the rod doesn't mean a parent should beat down their children into submission, rather they are to be like shepherds who value and care for their charges and keep them from danger by using the tools of good parenting to teach responsible behavior and appropriate morality."

http://www.hcna.us/columns/childabuse.html

 

[+Sherapy]

30 minutes ago, simplybill said:

This long quote is from the webpage of a Christian organization. (I'm including the entire post because the webpage has a distracting op-art border. I've added the link in case the Moderators want to shorten my post.)

"What Does Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child Really Mean?

This week we hear again from psychologists Drs. David and Donna Lane who ask, "What's the meaning behind the proverbial saying, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child,' and does this Bible verse really advocate the beating of children?"

To begin with, this "verse," as quoted, isn't in the Bible. The closest verse like it is Proverbs 13:24 which reads, "Those who spare the rod, hate their children, but the one who loves their child disciplines them diligently." The question is, what was the use of the rod, and is it a directive or a metaphor?

The use of the word rod in this passage is the same one used in the 23rd Psalm where we read, "Your rod and your staff comfort me." We may rightfully assume that the rod of a shepherd is at least similar in type and use to that in the proverb.

I'll be the first to admit that I've heard variations of this proverb used by both clergy and laity alike to justify corporal punishment, but the use of the rod by shepherds did not generally include beating the sheep. The fact is, the rod and staff were the two implements utilized by professional shepherds of the day. The staff, which we are most familiar with, has a "crook" or "hook" on the end which was used to stop running sheep, help pull sheep up from rocky places when they'd fallen over, and so on. The rod was used when corralling the sheep to insure they went in the direction they were supposed to go. It wasn't used to prod or poke, but to direct along the length of the shaft.

Now, sheep were a valuable asset for the shepherd; indeed, without the sheep there would be no shepherd, so the flocks were well taken care of. In fact, a damaged or maimed sheep was a liability, since it was considered tamé, Hebrew for polluted or impure. This being the case, the shepherd who owned their sheep took good care of them and used the tools of their trade as they were meant to be used--to guide, to direct, and to teach (the literal meaning of discipline). However, there were scoundrels who were simply hired to look after the sheep. They had little concern over the welfare of the animals, so they would use their tools in whatever way suited them. These were the ones who might lose their tempers and beat a lamb with a rod just to demonstrate they were more powerful and could force their will upon it.

Children are no less valuable than sheep, and they learn better too! If a sheep is consistency directed, that is limited and taught, they will learn what is expected and generally conform. However, if they are beaten and broken they not only stop responding, but they look for every opportunity to escape--even when escape may mean grave danger.

To "spare the rod" is indicative of a parent who does not discipline their child, that is, to teach, guide, and direct. This is the parent who "hates their child." To spare the rod doesn't mean a parent should beat down their children into submission, rather they are to be like shepherds who value and care for their charges and keep them from danger by using the tools of good parenting to teach responsible behavior and appropriate morality."

http://www.hcna.us/columns/childabuse.html

 

 

Thank you Bill. 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

My father was the product of generations going back into the mists time when flogging was acceptable punishment in all walks of life. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times he used it on me. The first times were ritualistic, a father performing an unpleasant--to him--but necessary thing but the last was the worst and there was no ritual. I was a teenager and had mocked his baldness in front of a friend and had hurt his feelings and his pride. The punishment was not discipline, but an act of anger and retribution and afterwards he realized it. He never used corporal punishment on any of his children again.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[jmccr8]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

They are only fictional because the y never happened, but if the y had the i would have acted as planned How do I know ? Because in all similar situations which DID occur I acted as previously planned The idea is to have plan for almost any event which might occur in your life  It may never happen but when it does you will act as planned and prepared.and thus have a much higher chance of survival  The pencil was a real case A large 16 year old male student threatened to hit me and to beat me up. I pointed to the pencil and said you can try, but if you don't succeed a the first go I will grab that pencil and ram it into your brain  I wont go on to the other threats i made. And i was totally serious (i think ) if he had attacked me that s what i would have done  Blow getting beaten up by some big bully of a teenager who had already killed a taxi driver and was back a t school as part of his probation. The fact that i was totally serious with my threat had the desired effect.  The other two alternatives were to let him hit me or to run away Neither would have done much for my teaching future.  After that we got on quite ok     

 

 

Hi Walker,

How is it going?

When we last discussed this "event" you were a 12 yr old boy, you admitted and affirmed that you had been bullied and possessed no athletic skills and had been the victim of prior bullying by other individuals and over a period of time. There were 2 boys that were beating up all the boys to create reps and at that time were undefeated and you were next on the list.when they confronted you in an empty room and where there was a table/desk on which a pencil sat and you picked it up and held it to his eye. You then told the one of the two what cause and effect with a generous description would be and they went away and never beat up little boys again.

Now after reading this new and improved mix of two fictional tales I concluded that a little thought experiment to simulate comprehension of reality and the not so real (lucid dreaming). If one buries their hand deep in their pockets hands deep in their pockets and gets a firm grip on life then massages the embers of the mind,I used Walker's three-boobed alien female to focus on while entering the lucid dream state although my alien was looking kinda like Halley Berry only taller. Once I had positively identified whether I was in a reality or dream state according to rigorous self-imposed definitions of both real and imaginary dreams then I squinted my eyes and sped read through my eyelashes your last post while playing Alice Cooper in reverse. I was able to determine that because the words I, Me, pencil and boy that these two versions of the story are absolutely the same level fiction that several of and including your conspired killing and coverup of a burglar are.

This poses the questions is there real and imaginary fiction? How would we know the difference? What purpose does it satisfy in reality that this duality should exist? Is there a cure? just in arguing this one incident and what you have told in your other past life admissions then there is no way that you were competent enough to do what you have claimed to do.

jmccr8 

 

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Oh I don't know, it finally got you to read it at least!

Please provide examples for this.  I couldn't find any supporting evidence for physical discipline and even minor stuff seems to cause harm.

Please provide evidence to support your point.  It is my experience that the worst behaved children are usually those being grabbed, smacked and generally dragged around by their parents.  Violence breeds violence and this is well understood and clinically studied.

Good.  We use a reward based system.  If my child is well behaved they receive a reward in the shape of a sticker, this can be applied in several places around the house to remind them of their good behaviour.  Bad behaviour results in the removal of an allotted period of 'entertainment' which can be anything from screen time to snack treats etc.  This combined with explanation is all that is needed and follows on from the way I was treated as a child.  Non-violence begets non-violence it would seem.

Which is as it should be, but you didn't hit them and this is most likely why you got respect back.

Then we agree on much.

But you ignore several generations of my own family experience, involving   many different children who were corporally punished and grew up to be exemplary citizens, (including Australian of the year for our small city )  respected members of the community, loving, kind, and non violent.  

None of us became violent,  in part because we had the emotional control and self discipline required to control our emotions As i said (and you can believe it or not)  My mother lived to 95 my father to 80.  Neither of them EVER lost control of their temper or physical behaviour, or used abusive manipulative or  controlling language to others.

There is also plenty of evidence that more lasting emotional and psychological  harm is done to children from  how their parents treat them emotionally and verbally, than from minor physical discipline. Smacks are soon forgotten, but  a harsh word, or a lack of love, can be remembered and felt for a life time. 

We were all corporally punished, and you would have trouble finding adult children who loved and respected their parents, as much as we all did our parents. We remained a close knit family, physically and emotionally, until their deaths, spending time with them every week, and always respecting their advice, opinions, and judgements .   It simply is not true that a child who is lovingly disciplined, and understands the logic and purpose of the discipline, will inevitably become disrespectful or resentful of their parents.  Quite the opposite is likely.   

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, simplybill said:

This long quote is from the webpage of a Christian organization. (I'm including the entire post because the webpage has a distracting op-art border. I've added the link in case the Moderators want to shorten my post.)

"What Does Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child Really Mean?

This week we hear again from psychologists Drs. David and Donna Lane who ask, "What's the meaning behind the proverbial saying, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child,' and does this Bible verse really advocate the beating of children?"

To begin with, this "verse," as quoted, isn't in the Bible. The closest verse like it is Proverbs 13:24 which reads, "Those who spare the rod, hate their children, but the one who loves their child disciplines them diligently." The question is, what was the use of the rod, and is it a directive or a metaphor?

The use of the word rod in this passage is the same one used in the 23rd Psalm where we read, "Your rod and your staff comfort me." We may rightfully assume that the rod of a shepherd is at least similar in type and use to that in the proverb.

I'll be the first to admit that I've heard variations of this proverb used by both clergy and laity alike to justify corporal punishment, but the use of the rod by shepherds did not generally include beating the sheep. The fact is, the rod and staff were the two implements utilized by professional shepherds of the day. The staff, which we are most familiar with, has a "crook" or "hook" on the end which was used to stop running sheep, help pull sheep up from rocky places when they'd fallen over, and so on. The rod was used when corralling the sheep to insure they went in the direction they were supposed to go. It wasn't used to prod or poke, but to direct along the length of the shaft.

Now, sheep were a valuable asset for the shepherd; indeed, without the sheep there would be no shepherd, so the flocks were well taken care of. In fact, a damaged or maimed sheep was a liability, since it was considered tamé, Hebrew for polluted or impure. This being the case, the shepherd who owned their sheep took good care of them and used the tools of their trade as they were meant to be used--to guide, to direct, and to teach (the literal meaning of discipline). However, there were scoundrels who were simply hired to look after the sheep. They had little concern over the welfare of the animals, so they would use their tools in whatever way suited them. These were the ones who might lose their tempers and beat a lamb with a rod just to demonstrate they were more powerful and could force their will upon it.

Children are no less valuable than sheep, and they learn better too! If a sheep is consistency directed, that is limited and taught, they will learn what is expected and generally conform. However, if they are beaten and broken they not only stop responding, but they look for every opportunity to escape--even when escape may mean grave danger.

To "spare the rod" is indicative of a parent who does not discipline their child, that is, to teach, guide, and direct. This is the parent who "hates their child." To spare the rod doesn't mean a parent should beat down their children into submission, rather they are to be like shepherds who value and care for their charges and keep them from danger by using the tools of good parenting to teach responsible behavior and appropriate morality."

http://www.hcna.us/columns/childabuse.html

 

 

The bolded is the critical summation 

My parents were atheists but very wise humanists. They came from well educated and intelligent stock, and they understood wisdoms like this, almost innately. Discipline was used not to make us submissive but to teach us to control our own minds and behaviours. Of course this was a time when children were expected to be respectful and obedient in all parts of life, and where you would be caned at school for not following a rule or disrespecting a teacher,  but  my parents aim  was not  to make us  submissive, simply not confrontational.

We were encouraged to have our own ideas, to debate  and question, while recognising the legitimacy of authority figures  in a democratic society, the rule of law, and the importance of customary behaviours to bind a society together. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 1/31/2018 at 11:57 AM, simplybill said:

This long quote is from the webpage of a Christian organization. (I'm including the entire post because the webpage has a distracting op-art border. I've added the link in case the Moderators want to shorten my post.)

"What Does Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child Really Mean?

This week we hear again from psychologists Drs. David and Donna Lane who ask, "What's the meaning behind the proverbial saying, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child,' and does this Bible verse really advocate the beating of children?"

To begin with, this "verse," as quoted, isn't in the Bible. The closest verse like it is Proverbs 13:24 which reads, "Those who spare the rod, hate their children, but the one who loves their child disciplines them diligently." The question is, what was the use of the rod, and is it a directive or a metaphor?

The use of the word rod in this passage is the same one used in the 23rd Psalm where we read, "Your rod and your staff comfort me." We may rightfully assume that the rod of a shepherd is at least similar in type and use to that in the proverb.

I'll be the first to admit that I've heard variations of this proverb used by both clergy and laity alike to justify corporal punishment, but the use of the rod by shepherds did not generally include beating the sheep. The fact is, the rod and staff were the two implements utilized by professional shepherds of the day. The staff, which we are most familiar with, has a "crook" or "hook" on the end which was used to stop running sheep, help pull sheep up from rocky places when they'd fallen over, and so on. The rod was used when corralling the sheep to insure they went in the direction they were supposed to go. It wasn't used to prod or poke, but to direct along the length of the shaft.

Now, sheep were a valuable asset for the shepherd; indeed, without the sheep there would be no shepherd, so the flocks were well taken care of. In fact, a damaged or maimed sheep was a liability, since it was considered tamé, Hebrew for polluted or impure. This being the case, the shepherd who owned their sheep took good care of them and used the tools of their trade as they were meant to be used--to guide, to direct, and to teach (the literal meaning of discipline). However, there were scoundrels who were simply hired to look after the sheep. They had little concern over the welfare of the animals, so they would use their tools in whatever way suited them. These were the ones who might lose their tempers and beat a lamb with a rod just to demonstrate they were more powerful and could force their will upon it.

Children are no less valuable than sheep, and they learn better too! If a sheep is consistency directed, that is limited and taught, they will learn what is expected and generally conform. However, if they are beaten and broken they not only stop responding, but they look for every opportunity to escape--even when escape may mean grave danger.

To "spare the rod" is indicative of a parent who does not discipline their child, that is, to teach, guide, and direct. This is the parent who "hates their child." To spare the rod doesn't mean a parent should beat down their children into submission, rather they are to be like shepherds who value and care for their charges and keep them from danger by using the tools of good parenting to teach responsible behavior and appropriate morality."

http://www.hcna.us/columns/childabuse.html

In other words, it's talking about not being complacent as a parent. Am I understanding that correctly?

(I found this a fascinating post.  )

[simplybill]

6 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

In other words, it's talking about not being complacent as a parent. Am I understanding that correctly?

(I found this a fascinating post.  )

Yes: active, involved, and interested. It is a good article. I was looking for an article I read years ago that was written by a Rabbi who said the same thing as this one did. I was hoping to put both articles in the same post, but I couldn't find the other one.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

15 minutes ago, simplybill said:

27 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

In other words, it's talking about not being complacent as a parent. Am I understanding that correctly?

(I found this a fascinating post.  )

Yes: active, involved, and interested. It is a good article. I was looking for an article I read years ago that was written by a Rabbi who said the same thing as this one did. I was hoping to put both articles in the same post, but I couldn't find the other one.

I wish more people would explain it this way you did. I don't know why I don't see that. 

[simplybill]

12 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I wish more people would explain it this way you did. I don't know why I don't see that. 

Thank you, Stubbly, but I can't take credit for the article, other than for being the one who posted it here.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

Thank you, Stubbly, but I can't take credit for the article, other than for being the one who posted it here.

I know that didn't write the article, but it seems, well to me at least, that you have been the only one with the article, to show how it's translated in such a way. I have come across so many that seem the saying is a ticket to beat the crap out of their kids.    

 

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎05‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 2:03 PM, bigjim36 said:

Why do some people believe the bible is literal? As in everything that is mentioned in the bible literally happened. We know that's not the case, science has proven that the earth is over 6000 years old, that adam and eve never existed, that dinosaurs existed and noahs ark did not, etc etc. Yet when challenged the best they can come up with is it's scripture. It's baffling and annoying, by all means have faith but do not believe the bible is anything other than bronze age fairy tales written by man. 

Why are some people only prepared to take the most literal interpretation of the Bible and then shoot it down as make believe?

You do realise there is deeper meaning in its texts? There is an advanced understanding of psychology, consciousness, how reality is created, philosophy, physics, maths, and systems thinking buried within its pages.

With the world being 6000 years old you have a limited understanding of causation limited to linear causality with time flow in one direction. There are several types of causation proven to exist in physics. Including the present creating the past which is called retro-causation. That means you can create a universe 6000 years ago as the moment of creation but running backwards from that point create the history to go with it. Get your head around that.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

22 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

On 1/5/2018 at 9:03 AM, bigjim36 said:

Why do some people believe the bible is literal? As in everything that is mentioned in the bible literally happened. We know that's not the case, science has proven that the earth is over 6000 years old, that adam and eve never existed, that dinosaurs existed and noahs ark did not, etc etc. Yet when challenged the best they can come up with is it's scripture. It's baffling and annoying, by all means have faith but do not believe the bible is anything other than bronze age fairy tales written by man. 

Why are some people only prepared to take the most literal interpretation of the Bible and then shoot it down as make believe?

You do realise there is deeper meaning in its texts? There is an advanced understanding of psychology, consciousness, how reality is created, philosophy, physics, maths, and systems thinking buried within its pages.

Does the bible instruct it's readers in how to read it? Is there an instructional page at the beginning that says this, and does it point out those varying topics are part of each bit in the footnotes? 

I mean, yeah forgive me, I have not read the bible fully because of my secular raised childhood. So, you can view these questions as serious one's in response to your statements. 

Quote

With the world being 6000 years old you have a limited understanding of causation limited to linear causality with time flow in one direction. There are several types of causation proven to exist in physics. Including the present creating the past which is called retro-causation. That means you can create a universe 6000 years ago as the moment of creation but running backwards from that point create the history to go with it. Get your head around that.

So, let me get this straight. Are you saying that there were only slight evidences of the world existing, before 6000 years ago? 

If I'm If I'm understanding  this. 

But, if this is the argument, theory, what have you, does this explain found fossils, and their age and other things that have the age of more than 6000 years ago?

[eight bits]

9 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Does the bible instruct it's readers in how to read it? Is there an instructional page at the beginning that says this, and does it point out those varying topics are part of each bit in the footnotes? 

No, there is no user instruction page. And if there were, there would be debates about what the instructions really meant, with some denominations where people don't move their lips as they read, versus other denominations which would consider that sacriligeous.