A smack whether controlled or out of control, still would be categorised under violence/aggression however you want to put it (hit X with Y). But saying NO in a voice that is truly assertive, rather than aggressive or passive, is still as effective, if not more effective. While violence which is a punishment causes a reaction (and you may not see the reaction under the fear), assertion causes an understanding without punishment. Most families and parents are dysfunctional, but it still doesn't make it right to use violence.
Spanking
- Thread starter Andrew1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It is not love, but many have a distorted perception of what love is. We all have unique perceptions of what love is.
But many have a highly distorted version from past experience. Discipline is often about control, rather than freedom. People fear that if you give freedom then people may go astray.
But then a truly loving parent (there are a few) will both allow their children freedom but 'at the same time' guide them. Often their children grow up with more love and trust in them for others and for themselves. Children who come from a disciplinary background often grow up to believe in discipline, and have a distorted view of what love is.
They may call discipline through violence (violence = hitting x with y), genuine love. Many do. This is not real love, whichever way you try to distort words to follow your belief.
Threatening violence/discipline however, is slightly difference. But it still falls under violence, since it has been enacted imaginatively.
But many have a highly distorted version from past experience. Discipline is often about control, rather than freedom. People fear that if you give freedom then people may go astray.
But then a truly loving parent (there are a few) will both allow their children freedom but 'at the same time' guide them. Often their children grow up with more love and trust in them for others and for themselves. Children who come from a disciplinary background often grow up to believe in discipline, and have a distorted view of what love is.
They may call discipline through violence (violence = hitting x with y), genuine love. Many do. This is not real love, whichever way you try to distort words to follow your belief.
Threatening violence/discipline however, is slightly difference. But it still falls under violence, since it has been enacted imaginatively.
R
I smack my nephews hand when he is getting into something I know he shouldn't. He's tried sticking his little hand down my shirt and I smack it and say "no", he's also tried touching the stove where i do the same thing. I NEVER do it hard enough to make him cry, but enough to where he knows what he is doing is not okay. If I didn't do anything he will go on thinking it's okay and either burn his little hand or think it's okay grabbing at women....just a thought
7
well, there is always the alternative of just allowing the child to reap the results of the bad behavior
problem there, is that everyone may suffer, ie if the child plays with the stove and burns the house down
but that's ok cause hey! we wouldn't wanna tap him on the hand and say no
I guess God is out of line also when He chastens us
often however, we are chastened by the results of our own misdeeds
I say let the kid run loose in the streets with no corrections...just a good talking to because we all know why we have 2 ears...input and output
problem there, is that everyone may suffer, ie if the child plays with the stove and burns the house down
but that's ok cause hey! we wouldn't wanna tap him on the hand and say no
I guess God is out of line also when He chastens us
often however, we are chastened by the results of our own misdeeds
I say let the kid run loose in the streets with no corrections...just a good talking to because we all know why we have 2 ears...input and output
Spanking should be the very last resort. Love means forgiveness and explanation of what
the child did wrong and how to correct it. The problem I see with those verse is that many
read " Spare the rod and spoil the child". They take that as a license to beat the child and
over time anger the child which is the opposite effect of discipline. The prisons are full of
those who have been beaten mercilessly and have ended up learned be vicious and not known
love at all. A case a couple of years ago in New York State. In a congregation, parents brought
their 2 sons to the front to confess their sins. The sons didn't want or know what to confess so
the parents began to beat them and others joined them to beat it out of them. Both of them
died from the beating. That is one example. There are many others. Is this really done in the
name of God. The problem with quoting those verses is that the door opens to fools and maniacs
and all sorts of incivilities. People who aren't even Christian or lovers of God in any way quote
"spare the rod and spoil the child" as something God commands. They feel that gives them the
liberty to beat the daylights out of their kids. We need to get away from there and into the NT
where there is forgiveness, teaching, reconciliation and most of all the Love of our Lord Jesus
Christ. I don't recall and I may be corrected but I haven't read anywhere in NT scripture that
Jesus either spanked or advocated spanking. Instead He has given us those other methods of
correcting children or anyone else.
the child did wrong and how to correct it. The problem I see with those verse is that many
read " Spare the rod and spoil the child". They take that as a license to beat the child and
over time anger the child which is the opposite effect of discipline. The prisons are full of
those who have been beaten mercilessly and have ended up learned be vicious and not known
love at all. A case a couple of years ago in New York State. In a congregation, parents brought
their 2 sons to the front to confess their sins. The sons didn't want or know what to confess so
the parents began to beat them and others joined them to beat it out of them. Both of them
died from the beating. That is one example. There are many others. Is this really done in the
name of God. The problem with quoting those verses is that the door opens to fools and maniacs
and all sorts of incivilities. People who aren't even Christian or lovers of God in any way quote
"spare the rod and spoil the child" as something God commands. They feel that gives them the
liberty to beat the daylights out of their kids. We need to get away from there and into the NT
where there is forgiveness, teaching, reconciliation and most of all the Love of our Lord Jesus
Christ. I don't recall and I may be corrected but I haven't read anywhere in NT scripture that
Jesus either spanked or advocated spanking. Instead He has given us those other methods of
correcting children or anyone else.
G
This illustrates the range of thought perspectives among people.
On one end of the scale are people who like to define words in absolutes. Hence, a 'smack' - by definition - is [ both ] 'aggression' and 'violence'. ( It is interesting that 'aggression' and 'violence' are considered to be identically the same. Anything that can be viewed as 'aggression' is automatically 'violence' also? ) In other words, there is no such thing as a non-violent 'smack'. Do these people understand the [ actual true ] definition of 'violence'?
At the other end of the scale are people who understand that the reality of life is not binary; rather, it exists with many variations of experience - each of which must be "judged" individually. In other words, you cannot "categorize" everything into nice, neat, little boxes and apply an absolute rule to govern each absolutely.
What do you do when "saying NO in a voice that is truly assertive" does not work? Because, it does not always work in every situation.
( Albeit, if this is true - then - it is probably because earlier discipline was not effective. )
I very much believe in disciplining children in a manner that "only goes as far as is needed" -- use only what is required. ( And - yes - there are some things you never do no matter what. ) If simply saying 'no' is effective, then that is what you do. Because, that is all that is required to bring about the proper result. However, if that is not sufficient, you have to do something that is "a littel stronger" - something that will get their attention. After all, that is what it is about -- getting - and holding - their attention -- so that you can teach them.
And -- "understanding" may certainly be had without "punishment":
When I was a very young boy growing up, my Dad could just give me a certain "stern look" - and, I knew that I had better "re-think" whatever I was doing at that moment. Because, if I did not, I might soon find myself being punished for something that - I have not actually done yet - but, have in mind to do in the next few moments.
When it comes to child discipline, it is not realistic to use digital absolutes in an analog world.
You have to discern and judge each situation separately.
On one end of the scale are people who like to define words in absolutes. Hence, a 'smack' - by definition - is [ both ] 'aggression' and 'violence'. ( It is interesting that 'aggression' and 'violence' are considered to be identically the same. Anything that can be viewed as 'aggression' is automatically 'violence' also? ) In other words, there is no such thing as a non-violent 'smack'.
Do these people understand the [ actual true ] definition of 'violence'?At the other end of the scale are people who understand that the reality of life is not binary; rather, it exists with many variations of experience - each of which must be "judged" individually. In other words, you cannot "categorize" everything into nice, neat, little boxes and apply an absolute rule to govern each absolutely.
What do you do when "saying NO in a voice that is truly assertive" does not work? Because, it does not always work in every situation.
( Albeit, if this is true - then - it is probably because earlier discipline was not effective. )
I very much believe in disciplining children in a manner that "only goes as far as is needed" -- use only what is required. ( And - yes - there are some things you never do no matter what. ) If simply saying 'no' is effective, then that is what you do. Because, that is all that is required to bring about the proper result. However, if that is not sufficient, you have to do something that is "a littel stronger" - something that will get their attention. After all, that is what it is about -- getting - and holding - their attention -- so that you can teach them.
And -- "understanding" may certainly be had without "punishment":
When I was a very young boy growing up, my Dad could just give me a certain "stern look" - and, I knew that I had better "re-think" whatever I was doing at that moment. Because, if I did not, I might soon find myself being punished for something that - I have not actually done yet - but, have in mind to do in the next few moments.
When it comes to child discipline, it is not realistic to use digital absolutes in an analog world.
You have to discern and judge each situation separately.
7
This illustrates the range of thought perspectives among people.
On one end of the scale are people who like to define words in absolutes. Hence, a 'smack' - by definition - is [ both ] 'aggression' and 'violence'. ( It is interesting that 'aggression' and 'violence' are considered to be identically the same. Anything that can be viewed as 'aggression' is automatically 'violence' also? ) In other words, there is no such thing as a non-violent 'smack'. Do these people understand the [ actual true ] definition of 'violence'?
At the other end of the scale are people who understand that the reality of life is not binary; rather, it exists with many variations of experience - each of which must be "judged" individually. In other words, you cannot "categorize" everything into nice, neat, little boxes and apply an absolute rule to govern each absolutely.
What do you do when "saying NO in a voice that is truly assertive" does not work? Because, it does not always work in every situation.
( Albeit, if this is true - then - it is probably because earlier discipline was not effective. )
I very much believe in disciplining children in a manner that "only goes as far as is needed" -- use only what is required. ( And - yes - there are some things you never do no matter what. ) If simply saying 'no' is effective, then that is what you do. Because, that is all that is required to bring about the proper result. However, if that is not sufficient, you have to do something that is "a littel stronger" - something that will get their attention. After all, that is what it is about -- getting - and holding - their attention -- so that you can teach them.
And -- "understanding" may certainly be had without "punishment":
When I was a very young boy growing up, my Dad could just give me a certain "stern look" - and, I knew that I had better "re-think" whatever I was doing at that moment. Because, if I did not, I might soon find myself being punished for something that - I have not actually done yet - but, have in mind to do in the next few moments.
When it comes to child discipline, it is not realistic to use digital absolutes in an analog world.
You have to discern and judge each situation separately.
On one end of the scale are people who like to define words in absolutes. Hence, a 'smack' - by definition - is [ both ] 'aggression' and 'violence'. ( It is interesting that 'aggression' and 'violence' are considered to be identically the same. Anything that can be viewed as 'aggression' is automatically 'violence' also? ) In other words, there is no such thing as a non-violent 'smack'.
Do these people understand the [ actual true ] definition of 'violence'?At the other end of the scale are people who understand that the reality of life is not binary; rather, it exists with many variations of experience - each of which must be "judged" individually. In other words, you cannot "categorize" everything into nice, neat, little boxes and apply an absolute rule to govern each absolutely.
What do you do when "saying NO in a voice that is truly assertive" does not work? Because, it does not always work in every situation.
( Albeit, if this is true - then - it is probably because earlier discipline was not effective. )
I very much believe in disciplining children in a manner that "only goes as far as is needed" -- use only what is required. ( And - yes - there are some things you never do no matter what. ) If simply saying 'no' is effective, then that is what you do. Because, that is all that is required to bring about the proper result. However, if that is not sufficient, you have to do something that is "a littel stronger" - something that will get their attention. After all, that is what it is about -- getting - and holding - their attention -- so that you can teach them.
And -- "understanding" may certainly be had without "punishment":
When I was a very young boy growing up, my Dad could just give me a certain "stern look" - and, I knew that I had better "re-think" whatever I was doing at that moment. Because, if I did not, I might soon find myself being punished for something that - I have not actually done yet - but, have in mind to do in the next few moments.
When it comes to child discipline, it is not realistic to use digital absolutes in an analog world.
You have to discern and judge each situation separately.
excellent post IMO!
G
betimes - Proverbs 13:24
Strongs: H07836
7836 shachar shaw-khar'
a primitive root; properly, to dawn, i.e. (figuratively) be (up) early at any task (with the implication of earnestness);
by extension, to search for (with painstaking):--(do something) betimes, enquire early, rise (seek) betimes, seek
diligently) early, in the morning).
Strongs: H07836
7836 shachar shaw-khar'
a primitive root; properly, to dawn, i.e. (figuratively) be (up) early at any task (with the implication of earnestness);
by extension, to search for (with painstaking):--(do something) betimes, enquire early, rise (seek) betimes, seek
diligently) early, in the morning).