Would Jesus condone corporal punishment?

[+Sherapy]

28 minutes ago, Habitat said:

As an adult, you can be forcibly restrained by failure to comply with a lawful police direction. I'm not advocating handcuffs for kids, but there is certainly a point where words are ignored, that children need force. Otherwise it would become, with a small minority, a free for all.

If a kid needs handcuffs something is seriously wrong in-the family dynamic. 
 

 

[+Sherapy]

16 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

It would also depend on what type of community it is. If it's the middle of Sydney and there are 5 million people in the city then it might be hard to have any informal intervention, but small rural towns with just a few thousand people are much more community focused and people in town know who is there to turn to help. 

How would you get the kids in school and prove immunization produce school records, take them to a doctor?

[Dejarma]

17 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

It would also depend on what type of community it is. If it's the middle of Sydney and there are 5 million people in the city then it might be hard to have any informal intervention, but small rural towns with just a few thousand people are much more community focused and people in town know who is there to turn to help. 

no, it doesn't depend on where. not in the western world anyway!
you can't just <take in a child> without the carers being severely vetted first & officially passed as capable...

anyone who's tried to adopt or foster will tell you this- or am i in another dimension at the moment!? 

[+Link of Hyrule]

27 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

How would you get the kids in school and prove immunization produce school records, take them to a doctor?

 

21 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

no, it doesn't depend on where. not in the western world anyway!
you can't just <take in a child> without the carers being severely vetted first & officially passed as capable...

anyone who's tried to adopt or foster will tell you this- or am i in another dimension at the moment!? 

I think you guys missed my point. I was simply saying that sometimes people help out with people in informal ways. If a teenager runs away from home, if he's in a small rural community there might be a person in town that is known to help those types out, and therefore know that they are welcome to sleep the night at this person's house. 

I'm not suggesting some kind of organised adoption group where families are randomly giving away kids to other families to look after. That's ridiculous.

I don't know enough about Mr Walker's foster life to be able to know exactly what he means by the authorities "looking the other way", but the suggestion in the first paragraph could be an example of "looking the other way" because it's not a formalised arrangement but the at-risk youth knows they have options that don't involve the government forcing them to live somewhere, at least in the short term (again, no one's suggesting this person begin enrolling random kids in school and become de facto parents).

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

I think you guys missed my point. I was simply saying that sometimes people help out with people in informal ways. If a teenager runs away from home, if he's in a small rural community there might be a person in town that is known to help those types out, and therefore know that they are welcome to sleep the night at this person's house. 

the above is a non sequitur= we're not talking about just staying over for a few nights

[+Link of Hyrule]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

the above is a non sequitur= we're not talking about just staying over for a few nights

I was just saying that rural communities have a tendency to help each other out, and some of these ways could be seen as informal fostering (even if only on temporary bases). I'm not arguing for illegal adoption, and like I said, I don't know enough about Mr Walker's situation to make a more detailed comment - maybe Mr Walker sees taking in a runaway for a few days or few weeks as "informal fostering", especially if he also formally fosters children as well and he sees this as an extension of his fostering duties.

[Dejarma]

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I was just saying that rural communities have a tendency to help each other out, and some of these ways could be seen as informal fostering (even if only on temporary bases). I'm not arguing for illegal adoption, and like I said, I don't know enough about Mr Walker's situation to make a more detailed comment - maybe Mr Walker sees taking in a runaway for a few days or few weeks as "informal fostering", especially if he also formally fosters children as well and he sees this as an extension of his fostering duties.

i've no idea what to say to that, fair enough

[psyche101]

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

post 476 copied below

If this references me, it is wrong.

 

I was a child and adolescent and then an adult.   I understand the bond between myself and my parents.

it is the deepest bond I have, only equalled  by my  45 year relationship with my wife and that i enjoy with the adults we raised as children   

I have raised a dozen children as my own and i find it offensive and illogical to claim that ONLY a biological bond creates a special loving relationship or indeed, that it always does  .

Indeed, many natural  parents abuse and kill their children, and the ones we cared for and raised as our own had been rejected, abused,  and abandoned, by their biological  parents.

  Today, two generations later, almost every one of them maintains a closer relationship of love trust and care with my wife and i  than they do with their own biological  parents.

We have half a dozen great grand "nieces and nephews" and many more great nieces/ nephews.

Indeed in one week before christmas  i had to attend 3 first birthday parties for 3 different great grand  nephews 

  It is i they (the adult children we raised as kids)  ring up when in pain, or anger, or suffering, in their lives, not just for someone to care, listen, and love them, but to give them practical advice and help  Not their biological  parents, whom the y often have no contact with and,  in some cases, despise .

 

 

So explain  what change of mind you saw 

That part I already bolded. You said you find the comment offensive and then said you weren't offended. Or did you mean "offhanded" I assume that was a typo? Doesn't make sense otherwise.

Quote

I am passionate that a non biological parent can love a child as much, and sometimes  even more, than a biological parent, because love is a choice, and a commitment of the mind and body,  not a thing we are driven to feel by chemicals  

See, this is what I'm talking about. Your focused on one role, you just want to talk yourself up 

A non biological parents can love a child more than a biological one sure. Some parents don't deserve to be parents. That's not the bond I mean. Children still seek out scumbag patents. 

You can't get what I mean. You have no actual idea of what I am talking about. It's not something you can just Google either. 

Quote

I felt that kind of love  for my parents, my wife, and my children, (non biological) because i chose to, because i built and maintained the mental construct of love, and kept it alive for my entire life;  not because some evolved chemicals forced me to.

However i also have  had those chemical rushes of "love"  The y are easy to induce on demand, just by instructing your mind to feel a certain way  The y aren't actually love a t all, just biological drivers imprinted on humans, due the long gestation period of human young, and the time it takes for them to be able to survive alone.

if your mind can instruct your body to create them on the birth of a child, you can learn to teach your mind to instruct your body to create them  at anytime 

That chemical rush can occur, or be induced, in any male,

So tell me. What is the unique experience of a biological father?

It doesn't exist.

Yeah it exists. It's not something I can explain the mechanisms of. But talking to another parent, one can tell of another recognises that unseen bond. The love for you parents or wife isn't the same. They are different roles and result in different bonds. You can call yourself the most loving parents on earth. You still cannot understand what I am talking about because you don't have that specific experience.

Quote

Try to tell me one thing you experienced,  (form a child's birth to it becoming a parent itself, to its death)  that i did not   (and yes i have been present a t the birth of a couple of these children) 

Recognition of self 

Quote

ive given the funeral service and oration for  one of them something i hope you never have to do this death could still cause tears 15 years later especially because it was caused when his biological mother rejected both him and his infant  daughter as not her blood.   

Sad story but irrelevant. My flatmate has a similar sad story in reverse. But I don't care to go into detail, it's too sad. 

Quote

The person  who BECOMES the childs father is more a "real"  father than a purely biological father,

  It is best for the child if they are one and the same but in the modern world this is increasingly rarer 

Yeah, I know. I told you that I have four step kids. I also know there's a difference that a non biological parents can't experience. Yes a step father can 

Quote

it is not like the god experience at all 

You have never experienced god.

You have never experienced a biological child just as I have never had a god delusion, so yes, its exactly the same. 

Quote

i have experienced all aspects of fatherhood with 12 different children  But the main point was the nature and the quality of the love i feel for my children.

It is not different to, nor of a lower quality, than the love a biological parent feels.  It is insulting to suggest that  is so, and it says to me that you have no idea how passionately i love.

It suggests that, somehow, my views on parenting will always be flawed or inadequate, because i was not the biological parent of a child.

So tell me,  suppose i had a dozen kids from sperm donation.  Do you  think i would love them as much as I love the ones i raised, simply because, biologically, i was their father ?  Do you think that, then, i would qualify as a "real"  father, and  be qualified to speak as one?   

What makes a man a  father ?

Sperm, or ongoing love, commitment, and duty?  

You're talking about a carer, yes a step father can do a good job of that. I did pretty well with my step kids of I do say so myself. However had you donated sperm, there's a chance your offspring might still seek you out. It happens. If you were a nurse and cared for a child in its first 6 months and even held a life saving role, that's unlikely to happen. That's the bond you can't comprehend.

Quote

I am pretty sure all the children i raised had biological fathers but most of them never knew who they were, and never met them. I was the only father the y had.

Oh and for 10 of the 10 children we raised it was in a time when googling didn't exist .

For the last  two girls,  I had the pleasure of managing all the problems of online harassment, teasing, put downs,  and sexual predation in  their teenage years  .

We coped.

It is true they both became mothers in their ealry twenties, but as their mother gave birth to them when she was less than 20,   and their baby brother when she was 15, i consider that an improvement  

The y also have had both their children by one man, unlike their mother,  who had 6 children by 3 different blokes,  making their homelife untenable for them  

I've helped apprentices like that. It takes what a decent person does. They just don't usually scream to be recognised for something they are not, like you are right now.

[psyche101]

 

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Birth rates were higher, I agree. Partly because people began families when they were 14. I disagree with your opinion that it's cultural only. 

Why disagree. What's the great advantage in having children before 18? Did you see the link Walker put up? It stated that child mortality rates were very high in under 15s, not over 18s. As the age went up, that statistic went down. 

Quote

If a divine being hypothetically existed, would he/she/it/they/etc want a- to ensure the species thrives, or b- to impose 21st Century morals onto a 1st Century audience? I know which answer I want to vote for. 

Please show how children having children ensures the survival of the species. I respect your word, but that's monkey muffins mate. 

Quote

Morals change. My brother is a vegan. He once told me that it is "an objectively more moral way to live" than as an omnivore. Is this true? Will society believe that a hundred years from now?

We don't now. Does he know how much deforestation takes place to facilitate the new vegan fads upping the demand for avocados and soy beans?

Society may feel that way as we move toward synthetic meats. Hard to say. I honestly doubt it. Some US people have a sidearm on them in public. The year is now 2020. Yet plenty of support for 1800s lifestyles.

Quote

What if eating animals becomes taboo, and a hundred years from now our descendants start to legislate laws for not eating animals. Our vegan descendants might look back on all of us meat eaters and think of us as barbaric savages. They might even say "people might think eating meat is ok, but a deity should know better". We have no idea how morals are going to be viewed generations from now. 

Until then, I love a piece of steak as much as the next bloke, and no 22nd Century AD bleeding heart liberal is going to make me feel bad about eating Old Betsy the Cow  

Not even close to the same thing.

It's part of our development. We don't consider Neanderthal man or our own ancestors barbaric and savage. It's a stage in our development. They don't really have that choice now do they. Taking liberties is a choice. A deity didn't tell is to eat meat. We did that before we had religion. When a vegan can effectively argue why a lion or shark should not eat meat, they may have a point, but I don't see that day coming ever.

Quote

Then let's agree to disagree. I find the assumption to be the only logical one to arrive at. Honestly, reading this I feel like you just tried to convince me that water was dry. That's the level of obviousness this seems to me, and obviously you don't agree. 

I get the feeling your just looking straight past me and not even hearing what I am saying. Can you explain or prove historically how having children before 18 was species saving. I'm calling BS on that one. I have no idea why you see it as a given. Nobody can produce any evidence that under 18 breeding saved the species. 

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Dejarma said:

no, it doesn't depend on where. not in the western world anyway!
you can't just <take in a child> without the carers being severely vetted first & officially passed as capable...

anyone who's tried to adopt or foster will tell you this- or am i in another dimension at the moment!? 

Unless, your proposal is a false dicotomy, you're living in another dimension.

Unofficial foster care seems like a regular thing.

Quote

Hundreds of thousands of children may have been privately fostered in secret, according to new research by the British Association for Adoption & Fostering (BAAF).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/invisible-children-at-risk-from-unofficial-fostering-1905789.html

If you care to, you could read p149 of Musgrave & Mithell's The Slow Evolution of Foster Care in Australia: Just Like a Family?

Edited January 20, 2020 by Golden Duck

[Habitat]

49 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Can you explain or prove historically how having children before 18 was species saving. I'm calling BS on that one. I have no idea why you see it as a given. Nobody can produce any evidence that under 18 breeding saved the species. 

Maintaining populations, where falling population might make a society vulnerable to encroachment by other, expanding populations. The idea that societies where the more able bodied people the better would have been an advantage, isn't that novel an idea. It exists is some societies today, having more children in a culture where state social welfare is non-existent, is the best guarantee of surviving into old age. Who else is more likely to look after someone, if not a child.

[psyche101]

37 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Maintaining populations, where falling population might make a society vulnerable to encroachment by other, expanding populations. The idea that societies where the more able bodied people the better would have been an advantage, isn't that novel an idea. It exists is some societies today, having more children in a culture where state social welfare is non-existent, is the best guarantee of surviving into old age. Who else is more likely to look after someone, if not a child.

I'm not following. Does that somehow approach the question?

I just don't believe the species had to start breeding at very young ages to maintain the species. One can have many children after 18, I can't see the need to start at such young ages. Many have said many children are needed. If that's the case, thats more than possible as an adult. 

It's a very strong held opinion by many, but I'm failing to see reason or logic applied there 

[Habitat]

23 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not following. Does that somehow approach the question?

I just don't believe the species had to start breeding at very young ages to maintain the species. One can have many children after 18, I can't see the need to start at such young ages. Many have said many children are needed. If that's the case, thats more than possible as an adult. 

It's a very strong held opinion by many, but I'm failing to see reason or logic applied there 

You seem to be transferring the modern situation on to the past, in the animal kingdom, when the female reaches sexual maturity, they breed. Those people were closer to that reality. Some primitive cultures are still there.

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Habitat said:

You seem to be transferring the modern situation on to the past, in the animal kingdom, when the female reaches sexual maturity, they breed. Those people were closer to that reality. Some primitive cultures are still there.

No, species going through evolution like that is natural. That why I don't excuse, but understand the 11th century standards. Ignorance has to be overcome. What I am arguing with proponents of the popular Abrahamic version of the Christian god, that ignorance cannot be claimed of such a being who is supposedly of the highest moral standard. 

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, Dejarma said:

so you took these children in illegally then!? what on earth are you talking about man?

lol  No I've explained this before, but for those who came in late .  b

I was a govt employee and a school teacher so i was well known to govt.,and had a good reputation  (by the late 70s school teachers were having police checks on their character)  I was also the school counsellor for a decade, whose actual job was to help young people and protect them from  abuse and neglect 

This began soon after our marriage in 1976, and things were not as strict then,  although even in 2014 there was no direct govt intervention or control when we took in  two young to mid teenage girls who had left home.    I did work with local police and women's shelters.  None of the parents made any objection. None helped with finances but none intervened 

Sometimes we had explicit consent from  parents, but sometimes, because we were blood relatives, (eg an aunt or uncle ) this was not asked for    

 

We saved the govt a lot of money,

We saved the lives of a few of themm although we lost one. 

Everyone was happy

No one even raised the question of legality, or the need for any paperwork, despite  working quite closely with some govt agencies.  Maybe because this was because we live in a rural community and were on a relatively isolated farm 30 ks from  the nearest town.  

This was also the case when we took in my wife's parents with dementia and cared for them for many years,

At that time  (i990s) we had them, two teenagers, and 2 children under 5, in our care 

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, Dejarma said:

this subject fascinates me. Other animals eat meat. In fact, there are many that only live on meat...

Many say meat-eating is bad/ immoral etc. Yet when a lioness rips cheetah cubs to bits to lessen the competition for food, it's OK/ classed as nature. It's not my fault I eat meat- I didn't choose to

This is because of the self aware nature of human cognition.

It is why it is not wrong for a great ape to kill a rival and all his children.  Neither do we expect him to get consent from  the female 

We impose standards on ourselves because we know better but cannot realistically expect the same standards of other animals 

We know eating meat is bad for our helath but more so bad for the environment  and can create   pain and suffering for the animals eaten

Thus, we have a choice which other animals do not, and can make that choice on value based, ethical or moral grounds, or simply logical ones 

The point is you do have a choice whether to eat meat or not to.

 You don't have to, to be healthy and happy  (i eat some meat, but try to minimise it for my own health, and to reduce my impact on the environment.  As long as animals  are treated humanely and slaughtered as painlessly as possible i can accept their consumption)   

Edited January 20, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

21 hours ago, Dejarma said:

looked the other way??? am I going mad here!!??
Just take in a child without it first going through all the official red tape= you can't do that- in any country, I think- let alone the UK, Australia, America (the western world if you like).. Or is it me having a thicky thick moment!?

see my post above

The y did more than look the other way. I worked with them but without any paper work. None ever asked me for it 

I cant see any illegality, even today. While many abandoned children end up in state care, more are cared for by others ,including grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, etc.,  often without any legal documentation  other than the same documation a biological parent must have  . (and in the past even this was not needed to enrol a kid at school, or to take them to a doctor )

[Mr Walker]

21 hours ago, Habitat said:

As an adult, you can be forcibly restrained by failure to comply with a lawful police direction. I'm not advocating handcuffs for kids, but there is certainly a point where words are ignored, that children need force. Otherwise it would become, with a small minority, a free for all.

A teacher is required by law to forcibly restrain a child if that child poses a danger to itself or to others(Only happened to me a few times in 45 years of teaching )

I had to forcibly hold one teenage girl down, to stop her killing her teenage sister ( with a pair of scissors)   in a rage, while we were caring for them both. 

The y both survived. She still has a terrible temper,  but i had lunch with her, her partner, and two young children yesterday  

[Mr Walker]

21 hours ago, Habitat said:

There are many examples of people farming out children to relatives, whether they have some legal obligation to formalize such arrangements, I have never heard of it.

yep more common than official fostering or adoption( Adoption is almost non existent in Australia) 

In part that is a reaction to the stolen generation of Aboriginal children as authorities in australia are more reluctant to officially intervene in family difficulties. Although they will take young children from homes if they are in danger, they try to leave them with other blood relatives 

[Mr Walker]

21 hours ago, Dejarma said:

looked the other way??? am I going mad here!!??
Just take in a child without it first going through all the official red tape= you can't do that- in any country, I think- let alone the UK, Australia, America (the western world if you like).. Or is it me having a thicky thick moment!?

Ps back in the 70s my sister in law offered to have a child for us and give it to us to keep as our own  

This was surrogacy before it was officially recognised or recognised.

We declined for reasons which may or may not be obvious.

In a way it worked out well, Being naturally childless, and loving kids, caused us to care for a dozen young people who other wise would have been homeless or abused, and may have died   

[Mr Walker]

21 hours ago, Sherapy said:

How would you get the kids in school and prove immunization produce school records, take them to a doctor?

Until recently this was not a problem as documentation was not as strictly required for any part of life  Also I taught at  the school and taught  the doctors children. That made it easier 

In 2013 I was still able to enrol two teenage girls at the school, without  documentation, other than their own proof of identity. It helped that they had the same surname as me     

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, Dejarma said:

no, it doesn't depend on where. not in the western world anyway!
you can't just <take in a child> without the carers being severely vetted first & officially passed as capable...

anyone who's tried to adopt or foster will tell you this- or am i in another dimension at the moment!? 

Actually you can and it happens every day 

It usually only comes to the  (official)  attention of an authority, either if there is a problem like abuse, or if someone makes a complaint,  OR if you ask the govt for any kind of help. 

Official fostering and adoption are different but these are less common than someone informally   taking over the care and control of a child.

We cared for young children and teens for 40 years, without any documentation, and without a single complaint or question from any govt authority, including the school or  doctors.

It is changing, but f i was still working we could still do the same today in my community eg i could take over the care of one of my great grand nephews, without any govt attention or involvement, if i did not ask for any help from them and if no one, like the mother, complained 

Here is current Aust govt policy

quote

What is out-of-home care?

Out-of-home care is the care of children aged 0–17 years1 who are unable to live with their primary caregivers. It involves the placement of a child with alternate caregivers on a short- or long-term basis (Department of Human Services, 2007).

Out-of-home care can be arranged either informally or formally. Informal care refers to arrangements made without intervention by statutory authorities or courts, and formal care follows a child protection intervention (either by voluntary agreement or a care and protection court order), most commonly due to cases of abuse, neglect or family violence

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/children-care 

Currently there are about 50000 children in formal out of home care in australia (over 400000 in America)  .The informal number would be over double that. 

In australia there is a special case of fostering (both formal and informal) called kinship care This was introduced after the stolen generation, but allows anyone(black or white) to care for a child (either formally or informally )  if the y have any connection to it (this can be, but does not have to be, any  family connection. it could be a cultural or other connection ) 

    

Edited January 21, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That part I already bolded. You said you find the comment offensive and then said you weren't offended. Or did you mean "offhanded" I assume that was a typo? Doesn't make sense otherwise.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Your focused on one role, you just want to talk yourself up 

A non biological parents can love a child more than a biological one sure. Some parents don't deserve to be parents. That's not the bond I mean. Children still seek out scumbag patents. 

You can't get what I mean. You have no actual idea of what I am talking about. It's not something you can just Google either. 

Yeah it exists. It's not something I can explain the mechanisms of. But talking to another parent, one can tell of another recognises that unseen bond. The love for you parents or wife isn't the same. They are different roles and result in different bonds. You can call yourself the most loving parents on earth. You still cannot understand what I am talking about because you don't have that specific experience.

Recognition of self 

Sad story but irrelevant. My flatmate has a similar sad story in reverse. But I don't care to go into detail, it's too sad. 

Yeah, I know. I told you that I have four step kids. I also know there's a difference that a non biological parents can't experience. Yes a step father can 

You have never experienced a biological child just as I have never had a god delusion, so yes, its exactly the same. 

You're talking about a carer, yes a step father can do a good job of that. I did pretty well with my step kids of I do say so myself. However had you donated sperm, there's a chance your offspring might still seek you out. It happens. If you were a nurse and cared for a child in its first 6 months and even held a life saving role, that's unlikely to happen. That's the bond you can't comprehend.

I've helped apprentices like that. It takes what a decent person does. They just don't usually scream to be recognised for something they are not, like you are right now.

Only going to comment on your last point  

I am only explaining all this to give my background, as a parent, over 40 years and almost 3 generations  

If you or others question my qualifications  or experience to comment in this area, expect a screaming response in return 

ive never had a god delusion either but,  also, I don't have a delusion that biology makes a biological  father  special, or makes him a true/real, father. 

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

I think you guys missed my point. I was simply saying that sometimes people help out with people in informal ways. If a teenager runs away from home, if he's in a small rural community there might be a person in town that is known to help those types out, and therefore know that they are welcome to sleep the night at this person's house. 

I'm not suggesting some kind of organised adoption group where families are randomly giving away kids to other families to look after. That's ridiculous.

I don't know enough about Mr Walker's foster life to be able to know exactly what he means by the authorities "looking the other way", but the suggestion in the first paragraph could be an example of "looking the other way" because it's not a formalised arrangement but the at-risk youth knows they have options that don't involve the government forcing them to live somewhere, at least in the short term (again, no one's suggesting this person begin enrolling random kids in school and become de facto parents).

That is pretty much  it,  but in reality it also applied to very young children "abandoned" by their mothers.

The y were generally taken in by a relative or a friend or someone in the community.

it was rare for them to be formally put into care or fostered or adopted . 

The authorities knew what was going on and approved the relationship, perhaps because of the specific factors i have mentioned about my stable background, community networks and professional  qualifications and income, plus a social or family connection to the child (except for two cases)   Since the breakdown of families and communities ( especially in cities)  the number of kids in state care has skyrocketed, because there are no extended family or community networks to take them on. 

In just the last 5 years the number of kids in state care has increased by over 20%,  from about 40000 to 50000.

About 37% of these are indigenous children  

Edited January 21, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Habitat]

Given sherapy's assertion that only a parent is worthy to comment on disciplining children, I am not sure why she is worried about what Jesus would condone in the matter, he was supposedly not a parent.