Spanking

[Andrew1]

As one who considers myself libertarian in principle I have found myself wondering how parents spanking would fit in with the Non Aggression Principle, (which states that the initiation of physical force is always immoral) and lately whether or not I agree with spanking based on this principle. So if I were to defend spanking from a libertarian perspective my argument would go like this:

I would hold that physical punishments by the judicial system would be appropriate and effective for violent crimes. Parents might be considered low ranking judges with minor judicial powers over their own children and thus it would remain consistent with the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) to allow parents to apply moderate physical punishments upon their own children for violent acts. If the threshold that is considered abuse is met then a higher court would step in to prosecute the guilty parent. This argument would then be consistent with the interpretation of Solomon's advice in Proverbs 23:13-14 to not withhold the rod from the child.

My argument against spanking would be that it is not the parent’s jurisdiction to make the judicial decision to enact any degree of physical violence against a child. And I would take a different approach to interpreting Solomon's words. Physical punishments were also a part of the judicial law under the old Mosaic covenant. And a child according to the scriptural definition can be considered as old as 17 (see Genesis 37:2 and 37:30KJV). (Also if one is concerned with the underlying Hebrew the same word for child “na‛ar” H5288 in Strongs Concordance in Proverbs 23:13 is used elsewhere in scripture for “young man”, See Genesis 34:19. A teenager between the ages upwards of say 15 may be considered a young man.) So Solomon might have been saying that judgments in a judicial sense regarding crimes worthy of physical punishment should not be withheld on account of a person’s youth. And if one regards the physical punishments of the old covenant too extreme for today Solomon’s words could be confined to the context of the old covenant and be considered no longer applicable for today.

My purpose for posting this is so that I could get some feedback from other Christians who are both pro spanking and anti spanking.

 

[Nehemiah6]

My purpose for posting this is so that I could get some feedback from other Christians who are both pro spanking and anti spanking.

I'm not sure who invented this so-called Non Aggression Principle, but disciplining your children is not "aggression" but genuine love. Just as God disciplines His children, He expects us to discipline ours, and sometimes a good spanking will do wonders. Since the Bible clearly approves of spanking (which has nothing to do with Old or New Covenants) you can rest assured that God has no objection to you spanking your kids (when that is the only option). Of course, it should be a last resort, and administered properly, so that the child is not physically injured, but his pride certainly is!

 

[MarcR]

As one who considers myself libertarian in principle I have found myself wondering how parents spanking would fit in with the Non Aggression Principle, (which states that the initiation of physical force is always immoral) and lately whether or not I agree with spanking based on this principle. So if I were to defend spanking from a libertarian perspective my argument would go like this:

I would hold that physical punishments by the judicial system would be appropriate and effective for violent crimes. Parents might be considered low ranking judges with minor judicial powers over their own children and thus it would remain consistent with the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) to allow parents to apply moderate physical punishments upon their own children for violent acts. If the threshold that is considered abuse is met then a higher court would step in to prosecute the guilty parent. This argument would then be consistent with the interpretation of Solomon's advice in Proverbs 23:13-14 to not withhold the rod from the child.

My argument against spanking would be that it is not the parent’s jurisdiction to make the judicial decision to enact any degree of physical violence against a child. And I would take a different approach to interpreting Solomon's words. Physical punishments were also a part of the judicial law under the old Mosaic covenant. And a child according to the scriptural definition can be considered as old as 17 (see Genesis 37:2 and 37:30KJV). (Also if one is concerned with the underlying Hebrew the same word for child “na‛ar” H5288 in Strongs Concordance in Proverbs 23:13 is used elsewhere in scripture for “young man”, See Genesis 34:19. A teenager between the ages upwards of say 15 may be considered a young man.) So Solomon might have been saying that judgments in a judicial sense regarding crimes worthy of physical punishment should not be withheld on account of a person’s youth. And if one regards the physical punishments of the old covenant too extreme for today Solomon’s words could be confined to the context of the old covenant and be considered no longer applicable for today.

My purpose for posting this is so that I could get some feedback from other Christians who are both pro spanking and anti spanking.

I think most believers can't answer from a libertarian perspective. I see myself as a servant of Jesus; and see unbelievers as slaves to sin. Libertarianism doesn't seem to fit either position.

Scripture advocates spanking. The Bible is the absolute standard of truth and ANYTHING that contradicts it is a lie or an error. End of case.

 

[EarsToHear]

Spare the rod, spoil the child. Without disciplining your child, they will likely run wild.

If you spank your child, never do it while you are angry. And, of course, let them know why.

 

[dcontroversal]

The end result of the break down of society and the general lack of respect seen in kids today is because of the lack of discipline tempered with love by parents......I have numerous friend who refused to discipline their kids and raised them under New Age philosophy and Dr. Spock mentality....and their kids are "hellians" and have zero respect for authority, the elders, their parents and society in general while being self centered little brats......

The bible predicts that in the end the children would be disobedient unto their parents.....a product of their own doing......!

 

[OneFaith]

As one who considers myself libertarian in principle I have found myself wondering how parents spanking would fit in with the Non Aggression Principle, (which states that the initiation of physical force is always immoral) and lately whether or not I agree with spanking based on this principle. So if I were to defend spanking from a libertarian perspective my argument would go like this:

I would hold that physical punishments by the judicial system would be appropriate and effective for violent crimes. Parents might be considered low ranking judges with minor judicial powers over their own children and thus it would remain consistent with the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) to allow parents to apply moderate physical punishments upon their own children for violent acts. If the threshold that is considered abuse is met then a higher court would step in to prosecute the guilty parent. This argument would then be consistent with the interpretation of Solomon's advice in Proverbs 23:13-14 to not withhold the rod from the child.

My argument against spanking would be that it is not the parent’s jurisdiction to make the judicial decision to enact any degree of physical violence against a child. And I would take a different approach to interpreting Solomon's words. Physical punishments were also a part of the judicial law under the old Mosaic covenant. And a child according to the scriptural definition can be considered as old as 17 (see Genesis 37:2 and 37:30KJV). (Also if one is concerned with the underlying Hebrew the same word for child “na‛ar” H5288 in Strongs Concordance in Proverbs 23:13 is used elsewhere in scripture for “young man”, See Genesis 34:19. A teenager between the ages upwards of say 15 may be considered a young man.) So Solomon might have been saying that judgments in a judicial sense regarding crimes worthy of physical punishment should not be withheld on account of a person’s youth. And if one regards the physical punishments of the old covenant too extreme for today Solomon’s words could be confined to the context of the old covenant and be considered no longer applicable for today.

My purpose for posting this is so that I could get some feedback from other Christians who are both pro spanking and anti spanking.

There's a difference between punishment and discipline...

Punishment focuses on the one being wronged. It is a revengeful payment to satisfy one's anger.

Discipline focuses on the wrongdoer. It corrects them so that they can remember to make wiser decisions next time.

​So which one of these matches "train up a child in the way they should go?" Discipline. Intention is important, and the most important intention is love (doing what is best for the other person, even if that's not what's best for you). The Bible says even if you uncover all Bible mysteries, give all you have to the poor, and surrender your body to flames (become a martyr for God), but have not love, you gain nothing! No heaven, no eternity with God, nothing for your efforts.

Therefore, all the other fruits of the Spirit (joy peace patience kindness goodness faithfulness gentleness and self-control) are obsolete without love. Gentleness being the one in question here. Believe it or not, it is not always loving to be gentle. Let me give you an example...

A kidnapper has hold of your child, and as a reaction you grab onto your child's leg as they try dragging your child away. Should you hold your child gently at this time? No! Even if you pull their leg out of socket, it's better to take them to the hospital than to find them decapitated in some woods somewhere. In this situation being gentle is not what's best for them.

It is the same in smaller situations- such as spanking. Spanking should always be the last resort, but is sometimes nessesary. If your child keeps running in the street, and conversations don't work, spanking might save them from getting killed. My child kept running around a campfire, I tried timeouts and talking, but after I spanked her she finally stopped.

You are not your child's buddy. You are first and for most their parent- their protector, provider, correcter, their trainer and life-coach. You must discipline your kids but never punish them. That means you never act out of anger, never leave a bruise or mark on your child, and never emotionally scar them for life. But most importantly, never do nothing when your child requires discipline.

I knew a 911 operator who told me she got a call from a 17 year old whose mother slapped him. The police asked him why it happened, and after telling him, the cop said "Well next time listen to your mother. If you were my kid and did that I'd of slapped you too."

The jails and prisons are full of souls who were not properly disciplined. I'm not saying that's always the case, but more often than not.

 

[MattforJesus]

Pro 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Pro 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Pro 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Pro 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Pro 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.

Pro 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

A rod for the fool's back,which a fool is someone that will not give heed to your words,or any method you try to correct them,but will do the same thing over and over,so physical discipline is the only way to correct them,and God said you will deliver their soul from hell,which shows how important physical discipline can be if that is the only way to cause the child to act proper.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Children obeying,and honoring their parents,is the first commandment with promise,for if they learn to obey,and honor their parents,they are more likely to obey,and honor God.

But parents also have a responsibility towards their children to act proper,and not provoke their children to wrath by any behavior not becoming a parent.

Pro 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Pro 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
Pro 30:13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Pro 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

The last generation before Jesus comes back,and the children will curse their father,and will not bless their mother.

Ever since the counter culture movement,with its rebelling against authority in general,drugs,and free love,laziness,and immorality,and a very selfish movement,for it was about do your own thing,morality slipped more from that point in time,causing a lot of parents to not have the morality they used to have,which is also affecting the children.

In other words the Leave it to Beaver days are over.

Because a lot of parents do not have the morality they used to have in the past,it causes the children to not respect their parents,and think,they tell us how to behave,and they do not behave properly,for so many parents are druggies,drinking alcohol,possible jail time,short tempered,cutting down the neighbors,cussing and swearing,and general bad behavior that was not so typical years ago,so it disappoints the children,and they want to act up,for they think forget my parents and the way they act,or they can get away with their behavior,because their parents are so relaxed in morals.

People say the children are more disobedient than in time past,but they need to look at the parents for they have a responsibility too,as well as the children,and fathers provoke not your children to wrath.

Children will only act according to how the parents,and government,will allow them to act,or what they can get away with,for everybody likes to exalt themselves,and a lot of children can be bold in speaking in a family,and can get away with it today,where in time past it would not be tolerated,because morals have slipped that much among the parents.

The Leave it to Beaver days are over,with their calm approach,and fairness about them,and discipline in the right measure,soothing the savage beast in children to want to behave proper,and respect their parents,for why would children respect parents that tell them how to act,if the parents do not act right.

 

[renewed_hope]

I wouldn't have turned as fabulous as I am without getting spanked and disciplined as a kid

Seriously though, my parents did spank me, smacked my cheek when I backtalked, washed my mouth out with soap, grounded me, and stuck me in a corner until I behaved. Let me remind you that the physical forms of discipline were only when the other forms didn't work. They disciplined me because they loved and wanted me to be a positive influence on the community and as a result, I have great respect for people and anyone who is considered my superior

 

[Ugly]

Smacking children in the face and shoving chemicals in their mouth does not constitute healthy discipline. This is why such behaviors put parents at risk of losing their children.

 

[OneFaith]

Smacking children in the face and shoving chemicals in their mouth does not constitute healthy discipline. This is why such behaviors put parents at risk of losing their children.

I agree with soap in the mouth- chemicals are harmful and not best for your child. But there are situations where slapping or spanking is warranted. The Bible itself says a kiss from an enemy can't be trusted, but a punch from a friend can. God put His own people into slavery for discipline.

I saw an episode of Highway to Heaven where he punched his friend to get him out of a bar so he wasn't killed by evil men.

 

[renewed_hope]

Smacking children in the face and shoving chemicals in their mouth does not constitute healthy discipline. This is why such behaviors put parents at risk of losing their children.

I'm gonna say this delicately, you really don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there are parents out there who abuse their children and they should get into trouble, but there is a HUGE difference between discipline and training a child and abusing them. I can count on three fingers how many times I was spanked and to be honest, I deserved it. Thry didn't do it to hurt me, but rather say I can't be misbehaving. A lot of the problem is that the government intervened when so many people cried abuse when it wasn't and now every time you try to rear a child it's wrong and you can be turned in....and you wonder why so many teenagers are disrespectful?

 

[GaryA]

As one who considers myself libertarian in principle I have found myself wondering how parents spanking would fit in with the Non Aggression Principle, (which states that the initiation of physical force is always immoral) and lately whether or not I agree with spanking based on this principle. So if I were to defend spanking from a libertarian perspective my argument would go like this:

I would hold that physical punishments by the judicial system would be appropriate and effective for violent crimes. Parents might be considered low ranking judges with minor judicial powers over their own children and thus it would remain consistent with the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) to allow parents to apply moderate physical punishments upon their own children for violent acts. If the threshold that is considered abuse is met then a higher court would step in to prosecute the guilty parent. This argument would then be consistent with the interpretation of Solomon's advice in Proverbs 23:13-14 to not withhold the rod from the child.

My argument against spanking would be that it is not the parent’s jurisdiction to make the judicial decision to enact any degree of physical violence against a child. And I would take a different approach to interpreting Solomon's words. Physical punishments were also a part of the judicial law under the old Mosaic covenant. And a child according to the scriptural definition can be considered as old as 17 (see Genesis 37:2 and 37:30KJV). (Also if one is concerned with the underlying Hebrew the same word for child “na‛ar” H5288 in Strongs Concordance in Proverbs 23:13 is used elsewhere in scripture for “young man”, See Genesis 34:19. A teenager between the ages upwards of say 15 may be considered a young man.) So Solomon might have been saying that judgments in a judicial sense regarding crimes worthy of physical punishment should not be withheld on account of a person’s youth. And if one regards the physical punishments of the old covenant too extreme for today Solomon’s words could be confined to the context of the old covenant and be considered no longer applicable for today.

My purpose for posting this is so that I could get some feedback from other Christians who are both pro spanking and anti spanking.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrooooong!

I am quite convinced that your argument is not based on a libertarian perspective.

A libertarian perspective would never allow for a context whereby the government subjugates both the parents and their children.

The biblical perspective is - God - parents - children -- no government.

God says parents have 100% "judicial powers" over their own children.

Only idiots and fools think it is reasonable for government to have more jurisdiction over a child than the child's parents.

How "convenient" is it that you attached-with-subtlety the word 'physical' and the word 'violence' -- as if child discipline that may happen to be 'physical' should also automatically be considered to be 'violence' [ against the child ].

Government-based "Child Protective Services" is not biblical; rather, it is an accepted "solution" for a society of people who have lost the moral backbone to accept the responsibility of properly disciplining their own children -- and, that keeping it in check is a 'community' resposibility, not a government one.

Church / Community elders + tough love ( if necessary ) provide a much better solution.

Nowhere in this post have I indicated - in the slightest - that I believe in child abuse. I do not.

I am saying that the job of keeping it in check belongs to 'community' and not 'government'.

 

[joefizz]

Spare the rod, spoil the child. Without disciplining your child, they will likely run wild.

If you spank your child, never do it while you are angry. And, of course, let them know why.

correction the bible quote is...
"spare the rod hateth thy son"
ugh shakespeare is so annoying in that so many people think his "saying" is from the bible,but it isn't.

 

[GaryA]

Smacking children in the face and shoving chemicals in their mouth does not constitute healthy discipline.

It does if it keeps them out of jail, off of drugs, in school, not-pregnant-outside-of-wedlock, respectful to others, always striving to do good rather than evil in their community, ...

This is why such behaviors put parents at risk of losing their children.

Liberal thinking and the erroneous conclusion that children should be property of the state is what puts parents at risk of losing their children.

 

[joefizz]

I wouldn't have turned as fabulous as I am without getting spanked and disciplined as a kid

Seriously though, my parents did spank me, smacked my cheek when I backtalked, washed my mouth out with soap, grounded me, and stuck me in a corner until I behaved. Let me remind you that the physical forms of discipline were only when the other forms didn't work. They disciplined me because they loved and wanted me to be a positive influence on the community and as a result, I have great respect for people and anyone who is considered my superior

God is my superior I respect him above anyone and his word says "if a man loveth his son he shall chasten him betimes"
not chastise...
chasten-punish so as to correct
chastise-punish as by beating,
two very different actions, because with chastening the child is made aware why they are being punished and made aware by the punishment that is comprehendible to them and reflects to them that their punishment was justified,where as chastising leaves little to no comprehension to the child as to what they did wrong,so despite what they endure they are more likely to repeat what wrong they may or may not have done,and can lead to the child growing up as abusive as their parent,and punishing their child out of tradition not reason.

 

[renewed_hope]

God is my superior I respect him above anyone and his word says "if a man loveth his son he shall chasten him betimes"
not chastise...
chasten-punish so as to correct
chastise-punish as by beating,
two very different actions, because with chastening the child is made aware why they are being punished and made aware by the punishment that is comprehendible to them and reflects to them that their punishment was justified,where as chastising leaves little to no comprehension to the child as to what they did wrong,so despite what they endure they are more likely to repeat what wrong they may or may not have done,and can lead to the child growing up as abusive as their parent,and punishing their child out of tradition not reason.

Spanking is NOT the same as a beating. Spanking is NOT abuse where beating is. You say God is your superior and you are right, but God entrusted your parents in raising you in the admonition of the Lord and teaching you how to walk as a child of God and discipline is one of the things. We have seen so many things happen to children who are sitting in prison with a life sentence who were not disciplined and not taught the word, "no". I'd say it's time for parents to step up and take responsibility

 

[mj007]

Feeling that spanking is the answer, is weakness in being able to explain, in a way that someone will understand.

I see people spanking each other on this site all the time. And absolutely nothing is learned from it. Unless you have taught 'fear'? That is not of God.

Parents often resort to fear rather than the capacity of love to bring understanding and respect. The reason is because it's easy, like going to MacDonald's drive thru instead of spending time to cook a nice meal.

Spanking is NOT the same as a beating. Spanking is NOT abuse where beating is. You say God is your superior and you are right, but God entrusted your parents in raising you in the admonition of the Lord and teaching you how to walk as a child of God and discipline is one of the things. We have seen so many things happen to children who are sitting in prison with a life sentence who were not disciplined and not taught the word, "no". I'd say it's time for parents to step up and take responsibility

 

[Ugly]

I'm gonna say this delicately, you really don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there are parents out there who abuse their children and they should get into trouble, but there is a HUGE difference between discipline and training a child and abusing them. I can count on three fingers how many times I was spanked and to be honest, I deserved it. Thry didn't do it to hurt me, but rather say I can't be misbehaving. A lot of the problem is that the government intervened when so many people cried abuse when it wasn't and now every time you try to rear a child it's wrong and you can be turned in....and you wonder why so many teenagers are disrespectful?

And how do you know what i do and don't know? You think 'respect' is telling someone they don't know what they're talking about when you have no clue what they know?
And yes, discipline is fine. I never said it wasn't. I said SMACKING A CHILD IN THE FACE or shoving chemicals in their mouth is abuse. Just like if you had a husband that smacked you in the face what's that called? Domestic abuse? Oops, there's that word again. What if it were a stranger? Assault? Hmm... seems at any age smacking someone in the face is wrong. I wonder why that is...
And to say i wonder why so many teenagers are disrespectful? Show me, exactly, where i said that.

You are completely fabricating things. Making up comments i never made in a feeble attempt to prove your point. But that you have to lie to try to appear right only shines a light on how flawed your thinking really is.

Also, i never said i was against spanking. I said smacking someone in the face or putting chemicals in their mouth. Seems the very abuse you faced has warped your sense of right and wrong. If you ever have children i will feel sympathy for the abuse they will be dealt in the name of 'discipline'.

And seeing your response to joefizz only further proves the point. Interesting how you related his post on abuse to spanking, but ignored the actual abuse you posted about. Didn't see him say 'spanking is abuse'. Just saw him discussing abuse and you took it a certain way. Says more about your thoughts than his.

 

[Ugly]

correction the bible quote is...
"spare the rod hateth thy son"
ugh shakespeare is so annoying in that so many people think his "saying" is from the bible,but it isn't.

He didn't say he was quoting the bible. Perhaps that was his intention but not one he stated if so. He simply recited a popular line with no reference as to where he believes it to be from.

 

[OneFaith]

And how do you know what i do and don't know? You think 'respect' is telling someone they don't know what they're talking about when you have no clue what they know?
And yes, discipline is fine. I never said it wasn't. I said SMACKING A CHILD IN THE FACE or shoving chemicals in their mouth is abuse. Just like if you had a husband that smacked you in the face what's that called? Domestic abuse? Oops, there's that word again. What if it were a stranger? Assault? Hmm... seems at any age smacking someone in the face is wrong. I wonder why that is...
And to say i wonder why so many teenagers are disrespectful? Show me, exactly, where i said that.

You are completely fabricating things. Making up comments i never made in a feeble attempt to prove your point. But that you have to lie to try to appear right only shines a light on how flawed your thinking really is.

Also, i never said i was against spanking. I said smacking someone in the face or putting chemicals in their mouth. Seems the very abuse you faced has warped your sense of right and wrong. If you ever have children i will feel sympathy for the abuse they will be dealt in the name of 'discipline'.

And seeing your response to joefizz only further proves the point. Interesting how you related his post on abuse to spanking, but ignored the actual abuse you posted about. Didn't see him say 'spanking is abuse'. Just saw him discussing abuse and you took it a certain way. Says more about your thoughts than his.

If a husband smacked his wife in the face out of anger- that is abuse. But if she fainted and fell to the floor, and he shook her and slapped her in an attempt to revive her, it would not be abuse. You're just not understanding that there are situations where it is nessesary. Or that we agree with you that slapping or spanking out of anger as an act of revenge is wrong.

But had I not spanked my child for running around the campfire, when nothing else worked, she could have tripped and fallen into the fire. It could be that she is not covered in scars today because I saved her from that with a spanking. It is not my go-to, or my first reaction, but at times is nessesary.