http://web.archive.org/web/20040824173731/http://wherethetruthhurts.org:80/tractsbooksread.php?w=39&p=2


"1) Don’t let anyone find out you’re beating your children

Almost all spankings will cause a brief red mark on the skin, especially on fair skinned children. Be sensitive to this, and don’t let your child out in public in shorts if there are red marks on the child’s legs.


2) Beat your children at home

… don’t spank publicly if at all possible… the proper training at home will prevent the need for corporal punishment in public. Don’t presume that nobody’s looking — there are video cameras in the shadows.


3) Always use the right tools

Hands, surprisingly, can cause bruising very easily. The aim is not injury but a temporary sting, and a paddle or a switch can do this much better than a hand. The pain of a pop on the forearm with a switch, or on the buttocks with a belt, or on the thigh with a wooden spoon should never cause lasting pain or dysfunction, but only a temporary sting that should pass in a few seconds to moments. If the child is wearing a diaper, be especially careful not to swing your hand at the child’s padded buttocks. Because of the padding, parents are inclined to swing harder, and they can dislocate the child’s hip or hurt his back with a heavy swing on a diaper. It’s much safer to use a wooden spoon on the open thigh than to risk injury by spanking a padded bottom with your palm.


4) Don’t let anyone find out you’re beating your children (again)

… insist that your children cry quietly. Strong, loud, uncontrolled crying is a manifestation of rebellion, and should not be tolerated. A spanked child should cry quietly and not excessively. Excessive screaming might also prompt a concerned neighbor to call the HRS on you.


5) Always get a lawyer for when you’ve gone too far

The HRS has zero tolerance for spanking, and if they learn that you “hit” your children, they will not hesitate to take your children, and then you will be at the mercy of a liberal court… If the social worker at your door asks you if you have guns in the home, or if you believe in the Bible, or if you homeschool your kids, or what church you attend, you do not have to answer. Tell her that you love your children and that you’re uncomfortable with the spontaneous interview, and that she can ask her questions in the presence of your attorney at a later date."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=FTlwi2LEvC8

Holy Allahu Akbar on a hoverboard!

This is the kind of Christian that scares me. There are a LOT of them in my neck of the woods. I work with one who says things that make me think she should be reported. However, the state would side with Bible-babble and support her.

Apparently kids aren't really human until they can beat up their parents. Until that time, they are silly-putty that needs to be molded and physical pain is the shortcut of choice. After all, kids are not really that good at processing information, and don't have the wherewithal to accept negative information without first trying to figure a way around it. So beating it into them is not only acceptable, but preferable, when you look at the big picture.

Beating your kids shows them, and the world, that you care enough to give them the best possible input method, so that they are adequately prepared to perform as parents and teachers when they accidentally have children of their own.

Christianity assures those who will listen that ghawd loves the sinner who will humble himself, and his kids, before the lord. So pull down your kids' pants and whoop'em!


These things I say in Raymond Burr's name (surely a relative of Ron!), amen.

"Years before the child comes to the age of reason and moral accountability, children can be trained to be submissive and to have good attitudes."

Fuck!

Beat your kids into submission before they can talk or think!
That's what Jesus would do!

Fuck!

(there are times when a heartfelt swear word is the only appropriate one...this is one of those)

That's what I took from the article, too; the focus on the child's submission is what appears most important to the author. Only once was the phrase 'within a loving family' used (on page one). The article did not even follow the admonition for a loving environment with saying the child should feel loved by the parent: they followed that the child should feel their treatment is the same the parent would have wished upon themself.

Suffer the little children, until they reach puberty then they are apparently evil little shits that need their will broken. This behaviour only breeds resentment and lonely old folks wondering why their kids never visit. Wild horses have their wills broken - kids are not horses and if they are 'wild' (who get's to define wild anyway?) it is only as a reaction to previous failures in their upbringing.

Well said!

I can remember once, when I was very small, my mother telling me, "By God, I will BREAK you!"

I don't know how old I was then, but I took "break" to be literal - that is, to leave the object of the breaking in pieces which must then be discarded. I did not know about the "breaking" (taming) of animals.

I was somewhere beyond terror. I did not want to be broken into pieces and then thrown away. I fought back with everything I had.

I ran into my room, locked the door, opened the window, pushed out the screen, and escaped through the opening.

I think I crawled under or behind some stuff in a neighbor's garage, eventually falling asleep from exhaustion.

Mother was always big on hitting, either across the backside or slapping across the face, until I was big enough to block the latter with my forearm, and I eventually broke the yardstick that she used to hit my legs and backside with. Handing her the pieces with a cold, disdainful look was very satisfying.

Of course, we never blanket treat whole groups of people,do we. Personally, I have never encountered this kind of child rearing in my Christian life. It is false to remotely suggest it is the norm for the vast majority of believers IMV. Perhaps the word some might be a good addition to the subject title.

This is like certain politicians proclaiming that beheading Jihadists are exemplars of the world's 1.7 billion Muslims. Islamic scholars and millions of good citizens say that those Jihadists aren't even real Muslims: they're just using this name to cover themselves.

But anyone who says this about the 'beating christians' are met with the Scotsman fallacy (by those who are practically as inexperienced in the spirit of Christ as those politicians are about Muslim culture).

I didn't see anyone here say "this is how all christians are."

If you have a beef, take it up with the author of the article, who presented it as "God's Plan for the Family," and insisted that this is how all Christians should raise their children.

So...you would not disagree if I said those people are not true Christians? (I think this is kind of thing was what Gandhi was getting at in his famous quote.)

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So...you would not disagree if I said those people
> are not true Christians? (I think this is kind of
> thing was what Gandhi was getting at in his famous
> quote.)

I would disagree. 'Cause that would be a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I'd agree that those people were idiots. But as they themselves give "biblical" justification for their actions, it seems that only by an arbitrary (and entirely subjective) definition of "who is a true christian" can you say that.

What's clear is that YOUR definition of "christian" is different from theirs. I like yours better, but that's also subjective :)

Careful...the "biblical" justification they give is from Proverbs--the Old Testament--so that would make them Jewish, not NT Christian. Thus the OP should read "Jewish child rearing." But you can imagine what an outcry that would provoke on this board...

The first page of the article gives the corporal justification in five more quotes from Proverbs. There is mention of Genesis, too. While there are 3 references to the New Testament (one of them quite missing the point of the verse), these are not about punishing. So again, OT justification, which should have been superseded by NT love, forgiveness, mercy.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So again, OT justification,
> which should have been superseded by NT love,
> forgiveness, mercy.

Yes, but I think you missed the point:
There are plenty of christians who consider OT "justification" perfectly justified.
You don't, they do.
Who's "right?"
They think they're right (and they have NT verses to back it up, what with Jesus saying the law shall never pass away, etc.).
You think you're right, probably based on the "Jesus fulfilled the law" thing.

They'll call you "not a true christian."
You'll call them "not a true christian."

It's all subjective...hence the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
There is no "official" description of a "true christian." What that is (if there is any such thing) is a matter of opinion, not fact.

No, my point is that those who hold on to archaic portions of the OT are not followers of Christ's teaching--any more than were the rigid, by-the-book Pharisees and Sadducees whom Jesus likened to the blind leading the blind. Those people accepted "the whole" of the Old Testament...and they certainly weren't "Christians." How could modern wholesale accepters be considered any different?

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, my point is that those who hold on to archaic
> portions of the OT are not followers of Christ's
> teaching

Sigh.
That's your opinion.
They have a different one.

Get it now?

Go look up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Then maybe you'll get it.

YOU need to reread that fallacy. I do deny the counterexample (that these beaters are Christian) and in fact also reject their original claim (to be Christian). And I do so on the basis of the bible itself (quotations to the same effect in Matthew and Luke about so-called followers who cry out Lord, Lord but do not do what Christ teaches). So there you have it from the beginning, the 'no true Christian' distinction.

Conservatives use the term XINO (Christians in name only) to describe any liberal Christians, ignoring how radical Jesus's views were for the time (and still are, as they undercut ego.) On the basis of those verses above, this would apply to many of the conservative christians, too (and their list of XINO, in wikipedia, does include David Duke, Joel Osteen, the KKK, and Hitler).

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YOU need to reread that fallacy.

Yeah...no.


> I do deny the
> counterexample (that these beaters are Christian)
> and in fact also reject their original claim (to
> be Christian). And I do so on the basis of the
> bible itself...

They do so on the basis of the bible itself, too.
You put more weight on some bible passages, and "interpret" them one way. They put more weight on some other bible passages, and "interpret" them another way.

Again -- there is no objective criteria for determining who's "right." So you're engaging in the fallacy.

Here's an example of the "default" form of the fallacy:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Here's what you're doing:

(1) These people interpret the bible differently than I do.
(2) No (true) Christian interprets the bible differently than I do.
(3) These people are not (true) Christians
Therefore:
(4)These people are not a counter-example to the claim that no Christian interprets the bible differently than I do.

Clear enough?

By this "fallacy" you can justify calling the Inquisitors "Christian," as well as all the people who were tortured and executed by them. That this was just a result of clashing interpretations. Does that really appear logical to you?

And yes, I am challenging the scriptural standing of that "informal" fallacy to cover all bases and ferret out the truth of situations. A personal taste for sugar is not equivalent to a fear-driven, ego-controlling, and sadistic streak in a religion that purports to be the opposite of those qualities.

But more broadly, though, I must ask what your point is in continuing this argument...

I am a member of no church nor a believer exclusively in any one religion. You seem to have dismissed all of Christianity as a delusion with no "evidence" that there was ever such a being as Christ nor is there any trans-egoic principle or potential in people to rise to (the "Christ within"). Therefore, it's all one mistaken 'interpretation' and so any disagreement within it is also just a matter of interpretations, with no valid overriding sense of morality to guide one in interpreting.

Would you beat your kids to make them obey you? If not, is this just a personal choice with no moral imperative behind it, and are others just entitled to follow their contrary personal choices?

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But more broadly, though, I must ask what your
> point is in continuing this argument...

You asked me if I would agree they weren't "true christians." I said I wouldn't, and explained why.
You've continued to claim they're not "true christians," using the same fallacy I pointed out initially over and over and over again.

> You seem to have
> dismissed all of Christianity as a delusion with
> no "evidence" that there was ever such a being as
> Christ nor is there any trans-egoic principle or
> potential in people to rise to (the "Christ
> within").

Not entirely correct, but somewhat.
Also irrelevant.
Fallacies are fallacies, no matter who uses them (feel free to call me out when/if I do).

> Therefore, it's all one mistaken
> 'interpretation' and so any disagreement within it
> is also just a matter of interpretations, with no
> valid overriding sense of morality to guide one in
> interpreting.

That has nothing to do with the way you're using the fallacy.
The simply fact is that the bible is subject to interpretation, and that tens of thousands of different christian sects all have varying interpretations. You insist on calling any who don't agree with your interpretation "not true christians." Many of THEM feel the same way about your interpretations. Hence the fallacy. You're defining "true christian" to be what YOU are, automatically excluding anyone not like you. Others who aren't like you often do the same. If you can do it, so can they -- which means none of you are "true christians." And you're right back where you started.

> Would you beat your kids to make them obey you? If
> not, is this just a personal choice with no moral
> imperative behind it, and are others just entitled
> to follow their contrary personal choices?

It is a personal choice, but there is "morality" behind it (though no "imperative", and all morality is subjective).

Once again, though, that's irrelevant to whether or not you're using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No, I have never beaten my children, and never will.
Not because of how I do or don't interpret the bible, not because I think there's 'god' watching me who's going to judge me -- because doing so does little to no good, and a great deal of harm. It's irrational, and more a reflection of the anger of the person doing the beating than anything else. There's plenty of verifiable evidence of the harm it causes children, and that there are far more effective ways of disciplining children that are far less harmful.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By this "fallacy" you can justify calling the
> Inquisitors "Christian," as well as all the people
> who were tortured and executed by them.

Yes! You finally get it!
They WERE all christians!!!!!

That might not have been the intent but the title of the thread implied that the method discussed was the Christian way.

@Dave the atheist, you had to use the way back machine to find an article that was published 13 years ago that isnt even posted anymore to imply that the Bible teaches:

1) Don’t let anyone find out you’re beating your children

2) Beat your children at home

3) Always use the right tools

4) Don’t let anyone find out you’re beating your children (again)

5) Always get a lawyer for when you’ve gone too far


That is just so misleading it is dishonest.

The username field is not meant for your upvoting/downvoting purposes. It is also forbidden to use other people's usernames.

If you wish to contribute here, please obey the board rules: pick a username/nickname and stick to it.

Thank you,

CZ (admin)

My parents were good Catholics all their lives, and they NEVER hit me or my brother, and hardly ever even yelled at us. I did hit my kids a couple of times when they were toddlers (one swat on the bottom) when I was frustrated, and felt bad about it. I also yelled too much, but my kids grew up fine.

I think only Fundamentalist Christians of the most backward and scary variety advocate beating kids today.

I agree and some non Christians and non religious people beat their kids.

Okay, which video game, when released, will be the bigger success:

Concert Shooting Gallery

or

The Kiddie Spank Parade?