Spanking

[Kalden]

Proverbs 22:15 (KJV) states: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Proverbs 23:13 (KJV) states: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." 

 

Given that these words were written by supposedly the wisest man ever to have lived, king Solomon, how do Christians (and Jews) justify them despite all the evidence we now have about the effects of such things on children?

[dsayers]

Given that these words were written by supposedly the wisest man ever to have lived, king Solomon, how do Christians (and Jews) justify them despite all the evidence we now have about the effects of such things on children?

With all due respect, I think you are asking the wrong questions. If "the wisest man ever to have lived" said that 2+2=5, this would not make it true. This is called an appeal to authority and is not useful to determining what truth is.

 

Also, I think talking about "the effects of such things on children" dispenses with the moral argument to focus on utility. This is a dangerous standard to put forth because utility is subjective and cannot be universalized. I think much better would be to focus on the moral argument. Don't forget that there isn't ANYTHING that you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except for violence itself.

[Kalden]

With all due respect, I think you are asking the wrong questions. If "the wisest man ever to have lived" said that 2+2=5, this would not make it true. 

Obviously I realize that, but I don't think it is an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be, in my opinion, me trying to convey that the texts which I quoted are true because the "wisest man ever to have lived" said them, which I in no way was trying to do, and I apologize for the confusion.  I was more questioning how Solomon remains on the pedestal of being the "wisest man ever to have lived" in Christian and Jewish communities despite advocating beating children with a rod. 

 

Also, I think talking about "the effects of such things on children" dispenses with the moral argument to focus on utility. This is a dangerous standard to put forth because utility is subjective and cannot be universalized. I think much better would be to focus on the moral argument. Don't forget that there isn't ANYTHING that you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except for violence itself.

By "the effects of such things on children," I wasn't talking about how "useful" spanking/beating children is in "correcting" their behavior compared to other parenting methods, but rather the psychological and sociological effects which spanking itself has, such as higher criminality, lower IQ, etc. etc., which I think is the moral issue here. 

[Kalden]

The explanation I've heard from some pious but peaceful Christian parents is that the "rod" is the shepherd's staff. Jesus was often equated with a shepherd tending his flock. Shepherds use the rod to guide the sheep, not beat them. And therefore, these verses could be taken to mean that guidance is needed, not harsh punishment. Sure, he won't die if you beat him, but he will thrive only with peaceful guidance.

I don't think it really matters who the rod belongs to or what its usually used for. It says "if thou beatest him with the rod" which doesn't exactly sound like the pinnacle of peaceful parenting to me.

 

[dsayers]

the psychological and sociological effects which spanking itself has, such as higher criminality, lower IQ, etc. etc., which I think is the moral issue here. 

I think you're using the inaccurate, religious version of the word "moral." I accept that morality is the objective measure of a behavior's internal consistency. As such, I would argue that the moral issue is "assault is the initiation of the use of force." It doesn't matter what happens AFTER the assault; What matters is that consent was not secured BEFORE binding another human being.

 

Also, I didn't mean to suggest that I thought that YOU were engaging in an appeal to authority. Though I did indicate that I thought indulging other people's appeals to authority was an inefficient approach.

[dsayers]

Alotta people follow stefan on the spanking.

Poisoning the well. People who agree with other people are not following them. Also, assault is immoral regardless of who accepts it.

 

I'm still out on that one still not enough evidence.

There's not enough evidence that your child has not consented to being assaulted?!

 

I spank my kids

How many of the people in your life who can fight back do you solve conflicts with by assaulting them I wonder?

 

my wife doesn't.

Yes she does. She chose a co-parent who is willing to assault their children and she allows her children to be assaulted.

 

prob once a month depends.

Depends on what exactly?

 

I usually only get to one.

Minimizing. You will get "credit" when you choose to not abuse your triple-layer power disparity over your child.

 

when I'm counting to three. remember what stefan said about mothers and fathers. fathers require without negotiations. With mothers you can be like. if i eat 3 peas then can i get ice cream. My wife counts to 3 restarts 1....2... 1..1...2 ..1..I don't the rules are set laid out and well reminded before i start counting. The last time i spanked

It would appear that the amount of times that you report assaulting your child is dishonest. This counting you refer to is a threat of violence. It's no better than the act of violence itself and is received by them equally traumatically.

 

1 month 1/2 ago my 6 1/2 year old pissed in my daughters room on her toys after we had the talk from him pissing in her shoes. open hand no more then two spanks to the rump. hasn't pissed any where but the toilet and counting since then.

If violence were the only solution, this might mean something. However, the only thing that you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. Also, where do you get off punishing your child for YOUR failure. If at 6.5 years old, your child thinks that pissing on somebody's possessions is a valid option, YOU FAILED YOUR CHILD. You don't have the right to assault them.

 

My mom spanked more often for lesser reasoned stuff. while my dad you really had to go above and beyond. Pretty much how i treat my kids.

Why not treat them in the same way you treat everybody else in your life? Namely by resolving conflicts NOT by resorting to violence?

 

Tho i was raised in the wait till your father gets home. that's why i say I'm still out on this one.

Why you choose to assault defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children is irrelevant.

 

i plan to stop spanking when my parents did, 9 yrs old.

Well after their personalities are formed. Worry not; they will not forget and the world around you is evolving in such a way as to make sure of it.

 

Even if you tried the don't spank your kids. i think it would be along the lines of asking people to eat right and exercise. people do what they want. If every one was the same it would work. But most of the people i see telling stefan that it has changed the way they treat their kids. Are already healthy well off in life kinda people. that have time and money and the right jobs to even have a stay at home parent.

What a crock of shit. Like there is some lotto somewhere and some people just draw the short straws, and therefore it's okay to assault their children, but ONLY their children. How "well off" does a person have to be before they are capable of resolving a conflict without violence? And how do you know that "well off - 1" is suddenly okay to assault children?

 

You are a violent coward. You know full well it's wrong to assault people and yet you choose to assault those who have the least capability of fighting back. The very definition of a violent coward. As evidenced by the fact that you do not use violence in your other relationships. As evidenced by your acknowledgement that you HAVE been exposed to the message of non-violent conflict resolution. I'm sorry that your parents abused you, and that they subjugated you to the point where you've normalized your trauma for the sake of preserving the memory/image of those monsters, but this doesn't excuse you from getting into a car and plowing into somebody's house since you have no business operating a car if you do not know how. There is no responsibility greater than or more delicate than the raising of a brand new human being from scratch.

 

Please invite your spouse to join the boards so that we may save your children's lives.

[Des]

I spank my kids but my wife doesn't. prob once a month depends. I usually only get to one. when I'm counting to three. remember what stefan said about mothers and fathers. fathers require without negotiations. With mothers you can be like. if i eat 3 peas then can i get ice cream. My wife counts to 3 restarts 1....2... 1..1...2 ..1..I don't the rules are set laid out and well reminded before i start counting. The last time i spanked 1 month 1/2 ago my 6 1/2 year old pissed in my daughters room on her toys after we had the talk from him pissing in her shoes. open hand no more then two spanks to the rump. hasn't pissed any where but the toilet and counting since then.

The difference between spanking and not spanking is:

By what you describe above, you create a hierarchy in which you as parent are the ruler, and the children are your subjects. You are in a class of ubermenschen and the children in a class of untermenschen. Ubermenschen may hit, untermenschen may not. This prepares them nicely to be ruled for fun and profit, by people more skilled than you are, at ruling people. Is that what you want?

[junglecat]

I am an unmarried marriage counselor, so to speak, but I have seen children of parents who never discipline their children and those that do. The latter are much more pleasant to be around. The former are generally hellacious brats who treat their parents with disdain and verbal abuse.

 

 

[castus]

Alotta people follow stefan on the spanking. I'm still out on that one still not enough evidence. Plus every time it's mentioned. he'll say children are spank 10,000 times a year 490 times a week. In my mind I'm thinking yeah by single moms. I think America is so all over the place. 80% spank but By who moms, dads, how much?  Does it mean something different if it comes from the farther as it would from the mother. Honestly we laughed at our mom and hated her if she did it. But when it came to are dad who prob did it once in a blue moon. it seemed way different.

 

I spank my kids but my wife doesn't. prob once a month depends. I usually only get to one. when I'm counting to three. remember what stefan said about mothers and fathers. fathers require without negotiations. With mothers you can be like. if i eat 3 peas then can i get ice cream. My wife counts to 3 restarts 1....2... 1..1...2 ..1..I don't the rules are set laid out and well reminded before i start counting. The last time i spanked 1 month 1/2 ago my 6 1/2 year old pissed in my daughters room on her toys after we had the talk from him pissing in her shoes. open hand no more then two spanks to the rump. hasn't pissed any where but the toilet and counting since then.

 

Wow now that i mention it. My mom spanked more often for lesser reasoned stuff. while my dad you really had to go above and beyond. Pretty much how i treat my kids.

 

There is more to it and the study that stefan keeps bring up and his single mother raising. gives me the feeling hes jumping on these studies half-cocked. Tho i was raised in the wait till your father gets home. that's why i say I'm still out on this one. that 80% is all over the place. tho i will say mothers should not spank the kids. i swear there is something about that. Everyone i know that is spanked when it came to the father. it had more meaning and lasting affects. Rules that were laid down before hand that you knew what would happen if you broke them. Kinda reminds me of the laws. just don't need a layer to understand the rules. Tho.. it don't much matter now. i plan to stop spanking when my parents did, 9 yrs old.

 

Even if you tried the don't spank your kids. i think it would be along the lines of asking people to eat right and exercise. people do what they want. If every one was the same it would work. But most of the people i see telling stefan that it has changed the way they treat their kids. Are already healthy well off in life kinda people. that have time and money and the right jobs to even have a stay at home parent.

 

I spank my oldest. There's no shame in it. If anyone wants to throw statistics in my direction about how its less or more probable that they'll be this war or that way, I'd say there are some things unconsidered in that data, and much to be said about the parents who would attempt to justify around physical punishment when it is warranted. As a father, or mother, it is your charge to raise your children effectively, sometimes this means restraint, sometimes spanking, sometimes this means timeouts, and always, reasoning explained to the child.

 

If your child stays within the lines, then good for you. Not all kids are made equal though. I reckon even good parents sometimes have a tough nut at times to crack at times.

 

 

The explanation I've heard from some pious but peaceful Christian parents is that the "rod" is the shepherd's staff. Jesus was often equated with a shepherd tending his flock. Shepherds use the rod to guide the sheep, not beat them. And therefore, these verses could be taken to mean that guidance is needed, not harsh punishment. Sure, he won't die if you beat him, but he will thrive only with peaceful guidance.

 

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

 

I'm not saying all Christians interpret these verses that way. Certainly there are many who do believe the Bible mandates corporal punishment. But, like circumcision, when people find it feels wrong to hurt their kids, they are able to justify peacefulness just as they are able to justify violence in the name of the church.

 

Yep, I see it both ways.

[dsayers]

I spank my oldest. There's no shame in it.

You mean YOU experience no shame in it. Trying to state your experience as factual and universal is an attempt to normalize violence.

 

physical punishment when it is warranted.

You create their entire environment. If they are capable of doing something that YOU feel warrants punishment at all, it's because YOU failed THEM. Also, there is nothing that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence except violence itself. So unless your goal was in fact violence, violence would never be warranted.

 

As a father, or mother, it is your charge to raise your children effectively, sometimes this means restraint, sometimes spanking, sometimes this means timeouts, and always, reasoning explained to the child.

Assault is not reasoning. It is the opposite of reasoning. It is in stark contrast to your voluntarily created positive obligation to protect and nurture your child.

 

Not all kids are made equal though.

Yep. Some are made into monsters by way of monsters torturing them. If you had any curiosity--as opposed to resting on a conclusion that you feel excuses your violence--you would check out things like Allison Gopnik's book The Philosophical Baby and learn that humans are naturally empathetic. Which makes evolutionary sense on so many levels.

[neeeel]

I am an unmarried marriage counselor, so to speak, but I have seen children of parents who never discipline their children and those that do. The latter are much more pleasant to be around. The former are generally hellacious brats who treat their parents with disdain and verbal abuse.

 

False dichotomy. You are saying "either you spank, or your children turn into hellacious brats" and thats just not true

I spank my oldest. There's no shame in it. If anyone wants to throw statistics in my direction about how its less or more probable that they'll be this war or that way, I'd say there are some things unconsidered in that data, and much to be said about the parents who would attempt to justify around physical punishment when it is warranted. As a father, or mother, it is your charge to raise your children effectively, sometimes this means restraint, sometimes spanking, sometimes this means timeouts, and always, reasoning explained to the child.

 

If your child stays within the lines, then good for you. Not all kids are made equal though. I reckon even good parents sometimes have a tough nut at times to crack at times.

 

 

 

this was my dads "reasoning" for why he spanked me, or was aggressive to me. I was "difficult" or I "answered back" or I "didnt toe the line" 

 

I really want to give you a big FUCK YOU, although I know thats not an argument or supporting anything.

 

Do you really think of your children as nuts to crack? I feel sorry for them

What do you think you achieve by physically hitting your children?  And what is the mechanism by which this is achieved?

[junglecat]

False dichotomy. You are saying "either you spank, or your children turn into hellacious brats" and thats just not true

 

 

this was my dads "reasoning" for why he spanked me, or was aggressive to me. I was "difficult" or I "answered back" or I "didnt toe the line" 

 

I really want to give you a big FUCK YOU, although I know thats not an argument or supporting anything.

 

Do you really think of your children as nuts to crack? I feel sorry for them

What do you think you achieve by physically hitting your children?  And what is the mechanism by which this is achieved?

I certainly wouldn't simplify my response as either spank or live with brats. This is only my observation of a few children and I am speaking in a more general sense of discipline and not simply 'spanking'. 

 

It would also be a mistake to not see the progression of cultural thought in the Bible. For example, at the time the story of Abraham and Isaac was written human sacrifice was the norm in human culture. The story is a record of the shift from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice.  By the time of the later prophets the Bible is declaring even animal sacrifice as useless. Today, Christians and Jews have left animal sacrifice far behind. I think some Muslims still kill goats ritually. My point is that the Bible is a progressive, self-critical text. The modern argument as whether or not to spank as one level of discipline is just that- a modern argument. My statement was simply one observation from my childless perspective. Do you have children? I would like to hear your approach.

[dsayers]

@Coal Jack: I'm not the person whose forgiveness you should seek. If this post is genuine, then I would suggest humbling yourself in front of your children, talking to them about the way that you've failed them, and make it up to them. You will probably need therapy and self-knowledge for yourself and therapy for them. By about age 5, the personality is formed. So if you have a 6.5 year old, it's going to take some serious deprogramming. You are right that you will pay for it sooner or later. Please choose sooner so that your child has the most opportunities possible

 

I appreciate your feedback on my approach, but it makes it seem as if you don't take the damage done seriously. If person A was raping person B, would you critique person C for the level of kindness they extend the rapist while trying to interrupt their aggression? At least in most rapes, the victim has some chance of fighting back. When the victim is your own children, not only is there a physical power disparity, but a mental and emotional one to you. They NEED you to survive. This severely limits their ability to fight back because to do so would biologically mean their own death. I do not apologize for calling things by their proper names. If you do not enjoy the way this stranger reacts to your violence, you could always cease the violence; Something you actually have control over.

[neeeel]

I certainly wouldn't simplify my response as either spank or live with brats. This is only my observation of a few children and I am speaking in a more general sense of discipline and not simply 'spanking'. 

 

 

 

Depends what you mean by discipline.

 

 

It would also be a mistake to not see the progression of cultural thought in the Bible. For example, at the time the story of Abraham and Isaac was written human sacrifice was the norm in human culture. The story is a record of the shift from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice.  By the time of the later prophets the Bible is declaring even animal sacrifice as useless. Today, Christians and Jews have left animal sacrifice far behind. I think some Muslims still kill goats ritually. My point is that the Bible is a progressive, self-critical text. The modern argument as whether or not to spank as one level of discipline is just that- a modern argument. My statement was simply one observation from my childless perspective. Do you have children? I would like to hear your approach.

 

 

Im not sure what you are trying to say here. Muslims still kill goats, therefore we dont know whether spanking is bad?

 

its irrelevant when the argument appeared.

If this post is genuine

 

Its not

[junglecat]

Depends what you mean by discipline.

 

 

 

Im not sure what you are trying to say here. Muslims still kill goats, therefore we dont know whether spanking is bad?

 

its irrelevant when the argument appeared.

 

Its not

The point of what I am saying is that there is a progression to thought about many things said in the Bible. The Bible has been sited many times in this thread concerning spanking. I'm saying this is a good debate to have. If we are using the Bible as a starting point for the debate it might be helpful to see the Bible's progression of thought in other areas.

 

I then asked you if you had children and what your approach to disciplining them is. For instance, if your child has an annoying habit, or dashes out in a busy street, how do you instill in them the urgency of your directives?

[dsayers]

If 2+2=5 was found in the Bible, that wouldn't make it true. Assault is immoral, a philosophically sound proposition. The source of false, contradictory data is irrelevant.

 

@neeeel: I'm inclined to agree. It was too sudden and a couple of the things said seemed inconsistent. Plus the removal of one's selfie avatar... I'm guessing we'll never see that account being used again.

[algernon]

Or dashes out in a busy street, how do you instill in them the urgency of your directives?

 

How does this argument become so pervasive? This argument for spanking is the same statist make for the roads... "But who would build the roads without government!?"

 

It's really quite simple, if your child dashes out into a busy street, YOU have failed them. If I threatened to beat you for running into the street, should that be your consideration for not doing it, or because you had the understanding that running into the street might cause you physical harm from the vehicles zooming by? If as an adult you had no consideration for the vehicles, and your only concern was not being beat by myself, then you would probably not run into the street if I had effectively made you fearful of my presence. What happens when I leave and you are no longer afraid of me beating you? Well you would run into the street, why not, the threat has passed? The consideration should not be because of the parent, it should be the understanding of the harm that can come from running into the street.

 

One might ask what if the child is too young to understand the dangers of running into the street. Well that's your job to keep the potential of harm distanced from the child. Put a land mine in your living room, and every time your 8 month old baby crawls towards it beat them - that would be a bit ridiculous wouldn't it? Remove the mine. Do your job as a parent and keep your 2 year old from running into the street, and TEACH THEM why they shouldn't, when they are 3, 4 maybe 5 or 6 they will understand the dangers of it, and then you won't have to worry because they have understanding regardless of your presence.

 

A parents job is to help a child become an autonomous person, spanking does nothing to further that and only inhibits it.

The point of what I am saying is that there is a progression to thought about many things said in the Bible. The Bible has been sited many times in this thread concerning spanking. I'm saying this is a good debate to have. If we are using the Bible as a starting point for the debate it might be helpful to see the Bible's progression of thought in other areas.

 

 

If someone considers them self a Christian they are followers and believers of Jesus Christ, and should use his examples. Was there ever an example of Jesus using physical force against another human? Much less a child? The only example in the Bible of Jesus ever becoming angry was due to the money changers and merchants in the temple, and he drove out the animals using a whip, as common practice to direct animals.

 

You have a few ambiguous passages in the Bible, and people use that as their entire parenting philosophy regardless of Biblical evidence to the contrary, and significant modern evidence of the damage it does, and how totally ineffective it is.

[junglecat]

How does this argument become so pervasive? This argument for spanking is the same statist make for the roads... "But who would build the roads without government!?"

 

It's really quite simple, if your child dashes out into a busy street, YOU have failed them. If I threatened to beat you for running into the street, should that be your consideration for not doing it, or because you had the understanding that running into the street might cause you physical harm from the vehicles zooming by? If as an adult you had no consideration for the vehicles, and your only concern was not being beat by myself, then you would probably not run into the street if I had effectively made you fearful of my presence. What happens when I leave and you are no longer afraid of me beating you? Well you would run into the street, why not, the threat has passed? The consideration should not be because of the parent, it should be the understanding of the harm that can come from running into the street.

 

One might ask what if the child is too young to understand the dangers of running into the street. Well that's your job to keep the potential of harm distanced from the child. Put a land mine in your living room, and every time your 8 month old baby crawls towards it beat them - that would be a bit ridiculous wouldn't it? Remove the mine. Do your job as a parent and keep your 2 year old from running into the street, and TEACH THEM why they shouldn't, when they are 3, 4 maybe 5 or 6 they will understand the dangers of it, and then you won't have to worry because they have understanding regardless of your presence.

 

A parents job is to help a child become an autonomous person, spanking does nothing to further that and only inhibits it.

 

If someone considers them self a Christian they are followers and believers of Jesus Christ, and should use his examples. Was there ever an example of Jesus using physical force against another human? Much less a child? The only example in the Bible of Jesus ever becoming angry was due to the money changers and merchants in the temple, and he drove out the animals using a whip, as common practice to direct animals.

 

You have a few ambiguous passages in the Bible, and people use that as their entire parenting philosophy regardless of Biblical evidence to the contrary, and significant modern evidence of the damage it does, and how totally ineffective it is.

I agree, teach them. I wasn't condoning or recommending thrashing. My question remains: how do you intstil in them the urgency the situation demands? How do you teach them?

[neeeel]

 

I then asked you if you had children and what your approach to disciplining them is. For instance, if your child has an annoying habit, or dashes out in a busy street, how do you instill in them the urgency of your directives?

 

An annoying habit? Do any of your friends have an annoying habit? Do you hit them in order to stop them having the habit? 

I would mention that I find it annoying. I dont know, I would see what happens from there. Maybe its me that needs to look at why I am annoyed? You seriously think that a child having an annoying habit warrants hitting the child?

 

Dashing out into a busy street? This is a pathetic and insane attempt to justify hitting. What does hitting achieve?

On the one hand, I expect you say that they arent old enough to understand reasoning, so you hit them to instill something ( I dont know what) into them that will stop them running into the street again

On the other hand, you assume that they are so supremely capable of reasoning, that they can somehow deduce from you hitting them, why you hit them, what they did wrong, and how to stop it from happening again.

 

Do you see how insane this is. A 3 year old doesnt know why you are hitting them. Even if you explain it to them ( which I would guess is hard while you are hitting them and shouting at them), they may still not understand whats going on, and they will be upset which makes it much harder as well. All they know is they were happily going along and someone 2 or 3 times their descended on them  , extremely angry, and starts assaulting them and shouting at them. Yes, they might eventually learn to associate the street with assault and fear, but they also learn to associate YOU with assault and fear.

 

As algernon says, it is down to you to keep them safe. If they are running out into the street, you havent prepared enough. perhaps it takes hours, or days, or weeks, of explanation, preparation, talking to them before you go out, pointing out how fast cars are going, talk to them about a time they were hurt running into a chair or something, and how much more running into a car would hurt. Children arent stupid, they can understand all of this. And if this fails, you dont go into the street, or you carry them on your shoulders, or you play a game of "stay on the pavement ", an almost infinite amount of options to try out, and you want to go straight to hitting them, Why? What does hitting them achieve in this scenario, and what is the mechanism by which it achieves it?

[dsayers]

My question remains: how do you intstil in them the urgency the situation demands? How do you teach them?

An ounce of preparation is worth a pound of cure. When a baby is born, their parents create their entire world. If a child could dash out into the street, the parent failed the child.

 

My father is no role model. However, he did do one thing right. As a child, there was a point where they had to set up mouse traps in the basement. Even though we never went into the basement, they saw the importance of protecting us from the mouse traps. So my father armed one, triggered it with a pencil, which was snapped in half. I noticed the pencil was thicker than my fingers and decided that I had no interest in playing with mouse traps.

 

It would not be hard at all to use a golf ball and a ping pong ball to teach children about mass and force. Then use a hammer and a melon to demonstrate the relationship of force initiated upon the flesh of the melon by way of a metal object and how the flesh does all the yielding. This would demonstrate to the child that you are willing to work with them and care about them.

[neeeel]

My question remains: how do you intstil in them the urgency the situation demands? How do you teach them?

 

 

I am sure there must be examples of parents who beat their children for running out in to the street, and later on their children got run over. So, it doesnt work. It may work some of the time, in the same way that picking a random horse to bet on wins some of the time. You have yet to explain what hitting achieves, and what is the mechanism by which it achieves it?

[dsayers]

I can't be sure what you've just said, but my interpretation is that you cannot be trusted and are not to be taken seriously. In the future, I wouldn't lead with violence or dishonesty.

[ClearConscience]

Proverbs 22:15 (KJV) states: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Proverbs 23:13 (KJV) states: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." 

 

Given that these words were written by supposedly the wisest man ever to have lived, king Solomon, how do Christians (and Jews) justify them despite all the evidence we now have about the effects of such things on children?

I am a Christian.  I believe God is wiser than any man, and I believe Jesus is a part of God.

 

Solomon was an incredibly wealthy commander of a Jewish army.  Jesus was a poor nomad who lived off of nothing but the charity of those who appreciated the virtue of his message (kind of like Stefan, except his wife presumably has an income, but whatever.)

 

So, let us examine what Jesus said about children and not, simple-mindedly, group all of Christian thought in with the Jews.  Remember, Jesus was hated by the Jewish authority (Pharisees and Sadducees).

 

"'At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' He called a little child, and had him stand among them. And he said, 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.'” ~Matthew 18:1

 

"Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'" ~Matthew 19:13

 

I would challenge you to find anything within the New Testament that doesn't, outright, plead for people to treat children with the highest of regard.  Jesus, literally, said children should be treated with higher regard than adults... 2000 years ago... when saying such things was probably the most unpopular opinion one could have, even among his own disciples.  Think about that.

 

 

I agree, teach them. I wasn't condoning or recommending thrashing. My question remains: how do you intstil in them the urgency the situation demands? How do you teach them?

Based exclusively off of everything I've read in the actual book, Jesus would say to treat those children in exactly the same way as you would treat an adult.  If a child is currently in the process of harming another person, then use force to restrain the child.  Protect the child from his/her own actions.  But once the child is subdued, do not deliver violent retribution as a punishment, as if that will teach the child to behave differently in the future.  Children tend not to think in terms of delayed gratification, and furthermore, they tend not to consider the delayed punitive damages of their actions.  The best way to instill good behavior in a child is to teach them that their behavior is ineffective for achieving their desired outcome.  It's plain and simple.  Without a concrete example, I cannot demonstrate to you how the technique plays out, because every situation is different.  All I can ask is that you examine what your course of action would be if that child were actually an adult, and request that you examine why your course of action should change.