 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > "You can't legislate morality!" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/7/2005 11:55 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Zach: Exactly! He had a "right" to support from his "children." So have you abandoned your earlier statement?
Jeff: Do you enjoy playing head games like this? Is this ethical to you to continue to waste my time with these kinds of equivocal questions and "slams?" Why didn't you tell me which statement you're talking about? Bro, I've made HUNDREDS of statements. Which one are you talking about?
Zach: I don't think I understand the question. I'm not agruing that my "foundation" is proper. It is what I have irrationally chosen. It makes me feel good to believe that my perception somehow corresponds to reality. Nothing is proper at this level, just pleasant. After these irrational assumptions are made, then other things logically follow, and I guess you could use "proper" instead of "logical."
Jeff: What do you mean by "perception?" Sense perception? Or do you "perceive" certain foundational moral truths?
Zach: Sure, if you've already promised something to someone, then, by all means, don't give it away.
Jeff: Ah, so we have a NEW qualification after all. How does a promise trump "give to him who asks?" BTW, I never said a word about promising anything to anyone. My obligation to dependents exists independent of me promising it. It comes directly from God. Second of all, how do you know to turn down the "asker" on account of a promise since God can "create" the "money" you've promised to another? Oh, ye little of faith!!! Bro, you are using judgement JUST like the rest of us.
And since God's ability to "create" money is pertinent to our understanding of "give to him who asks," let me ask you about another scenario. A beggar comes up to you asks for whatever you can "spare." Since God can create "loaves" and "fishes" and "houses" and "etc.," do you interpret that to mean everything since you can "spare" all, knowing that God will create all you need miraculously?
wjs Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/7/2005 12:54:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/7/2005 2:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | You first said that children were not responsible for providing for their parents, then you said that Paul had the right to rely on his children for support. Which is it? The primary context of the 2 Cor passage is Paul's spiritual children. If the passage has to do with biological children, it deals at least as much with this. So must children support parents or not?
Yes, I mean sense perception. I'm not talking about foundational truths at all.
Jeff: My obligation to dependents exists independent of me promising it. It comes directly from God.
Zach: Of course it does. So does your obligation to your neighbor.
Jeff: Second of all, how do you know to turn down the "asker" on account of a promise since God can "create" the "money" you've promised to another?
Zach: Yes, but when I promise something, I am responsible for it. When God promises something, he is responsible for it. It's not God's job to fulfill my promises.
Jeff: Bro, you are using judgement JUST like the rest of us.
Zach: You've said this over and over, but so what? Of course I'm using judgement. What's wring with that?
Jeff: A beggar comes up to you asks for whatever you can "spare." Since God can create "loaves" and "fishes" and "houses" and "etc.," do you interpret that to mean everything since you can "spare" all, knowing that God will create all you need miraculously?
Zach: If someone asks you to throw them a bone, do you take him literally? Charity does not require ignorance of English figures of speech. In reality when that happens I give whatever cash I have on me. I wouldn't normally carry any, but it's for this very reason that I keep a ten or twenty on me.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/7/2005 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | |
| Zach: You first said that children were not responsible for providing for their parents, then you said that Paul had the right to rely on his children for support. Which is it? The primary context of the 2 Cor passage is Paul's spiritual children. If the passage has to do with biological children, it deals at least as much with this. So must children support parents or not?
Jeff: The Corinthians were not morally obligated to provide for Paul in the sense of a child (a child NEEDS support, Paul EARNED wages). If they had been, he wouldn't have acted contrary to the obligation. Why would Paul want the Corinthians to NOT do their duty? Paul had the RIGHT to wages for his service. He did not exercise that right. If he HAD exercised it, THEN, at least those who could have afforded to do so would have been obligated to pay him those "wages." Parents, however, DO have a duty, pure and simple, to provide for their dependents, if they can. They have no right to pawn it off on others, unnecessarily. And children can not provide for themselves.
Zach: Yes, I mean sense perception. I'm not talking about foundational truths at all.
Jeff: Then I still don't know what you mean when you say my moral beliefs are unfounded. How can moral beliefs and judgments be resolved into sense perception? How, for example, does my sense perception even "sense" the idea of an ought?
Jeff: Second of all, how do you know to turn down the "asker" on account of a promise since God can "create" the "money" you've promised to another?
Zach: Yes, but when I promise something, I am responsible for it. When God promises something, he is responsible for it. It's not God's job to fulfill my promises.
Jeff: God is not responsible for providing for my dependents when I am perfectly capable of doing it, myself, and scripture has enjoined upon me the obligation to do so. And, regardless, you have just admitted that other moral obligations to other parties DO condition "give to him who asks." That, my friend, IS THE POINT.
So since I don't see ANYTHING in the context of Rom. 13 about "give to him who asks" (rather we are told we OWE the state for it's MINISTRY work), and since, by your view, the very ministry of the state is inherently evil, my obligation to it's victims, as I understand it in my admittedly fallible judgement, would require that I withhold "taxes" from it. Luckily for me, I don't have to deal with that conflict. For I'm told to pay the state for services rendered JUST like converts were to pay wages to apostles. But that makes sense because deterrence really is a "good" service.
The fact that states do badly at this service is no different, to me, than the fact that parents do badly at raising their children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. The failure to do one's job perfectly does NOT mean that society would be better off without "authorities" or that children would be better off if left to grow up without adult guidance. Even significantly imperfect "authority" can be a "ministry" for our good. THEN, I don't have to see the OT as inconsistent on vengeance. Humans, then as now, can only implement GOD'S vengeance (not personal vengeance), and, then, only when God authorizes it. No individual can exercise God's vengeance because God has not delegated that authority to individuals AS individuals.
If I can see the OT as consistent while sticking to contextual exegesis of all biblical text, I feel compelled to stick with that approach until some show-stopper comes along. That's why I don't take the Jesus-first approach. Jesus didn't even CLAIM to be trying to invalidate the Law, so why should I interpret his words as being contradictory to a contextual understanding of the Law when there is no NT contextual compulsion to do so?
Jeff: Bro, you are using judgement JUST like the rest of us.
Zach: You've said this over and over, but so what? Of course I'm using judgement. What's wring with that?
Jeff: Nothing. At least as far as I can tell. But all I've done is try to show you how, scripturally and otherwise, I ground my judgements and inferences. I have never claimed my judgements are necessarily true JUST because they are mine. You claim I have to be omniscient to make my judgements. All judgements, by definition, would require omniscience to be ABSOLUTELY certain. But that is irrelevant. We are stuck with going with the best we can do, given what we know. We start with milk and work our way up, trusting God to not allow us to be tested above what we are able, given where we are at in the process of attaining wisdom.
Jeff: A beggar comes up to you asks for whatever you can "spare." Since God can create "loaves" and "fishes" and "houses" and "etc.," do you interpret that to mean everything since you can "spare" all, knowing that God will create all you need miraculously?
Zach: If someone asks you to throw them a bone, do you take him literally? Charity does not require ignorance of English figures of speech. In reality when that happens I give whatever cash I have on me. I wouldn't normally carry any, but it's for this very reason that I keep a ten or twenty on me.
Jeff: Ah, but here we have Zach making common sense judgements. When I take a guy at his word about his intentions concerning a shovel, I'm judging his character or claiming omniscience, but you, the WISE ONE, apparently know, WITHOUT omniscience, JUST when words mean what they sound like they mean. Have a nice life, Zach. Let's meet up on other threads that haven't degenerated into pure circularity. |
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 8/7/2005 6:30:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/7/2005 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | I don't think I can say much more. I'll agree to let this one go. I feel like I'm telling you that basketballs are round and you are saying I'm wrong to call them green. None of the main arguments in any of the paragraphs in your last post address my claims. You either put words in my mouth or I don't understand what you're trying to say. I think when you use language loosely, I am using it precisely, and vice versa.
You seem to be saying opposite things. Paul's children shouldn't support him, but Paul has a right to their support. You claim Rom 13 says we owe the state, but you ignore that annoying "if" Paul puts in front of those statements. I could be wrong, but you seem to be coming to the script ure assuming what it will say. Finally, I want to be clear, I never said your "moral beliefs are unfounded." This is another example of you arguing with a man who doesn't exist. I'm very concerned about the way you read script ure. It also makes me sad that you would put yourself in the role of the "rich man" that you've been so critical of. But I'm sorry it's ended this way. I could have been clearer along the way, and for that I'm sorry.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/8/2005 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Communication is truly difficult. Just look at the argument Albert, Meph, and Tom are having. Unfortunately, EVERYTHING gets down to hermeneutics and what inspiration means. Because apart from scripture, all we have for moral deliberation is the "AS THYSELF" in "Love thy neighbor AS THYSELF." But "AS THYSELF" can lead to very different opinions for each person because we all have different personalities, intellects, etc. That doesn't provide much for constraint. So if we can't agree on which scripture is canonical and which hermeneutical approach is valid, we just have to agree to disagree. Regardless of how frustrated I get with you or anyone else on this forum, know that I harbor no hard feelings towards any of you, bro. I just think it's worth a prolonged effort to see if we can come to some consensus. I, too, regret the friction that I caused along the way. Communication is REALLY difficult. PEACE, bro.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted Today 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
Alan Rhoda said...Ever heard that line? Maverick philosopher Bill Vallicella has this to say about it:
People who say this are often people who confuse the genus morality with the species sexual morality. But even upon acquiescence in this genus-species confusion, it is obvious that we can, do, and ought to legislate morality. After all, we have laws against rape, and we ought to have them. The fundamental problem, however, is the confusion of morality with sexual morality. That the two are distinct should be self-evident, hence I won’t spare the reader the pleasure of providing his own examples. The next time someone says, ‘You can’t legislate morality,’ you say: ‘All legislation is the legislation of morality; therefore, if you oppose the legislation of morality, then you oppose all legislation.’
Of course, from the fact that all legislation is the legislation of morality, it does not follow, nor is it true, that all morality ought to be legislated. In other words, it doesn't follow, nor is it true, that everything morally impermissible should be illegal, or that everything morally obligatory should be legally required. I would say that drinking oneself into a stupor is morally impermissible, but if it is done in private, the state and its laws should not get involved. (But drive on public roads in that condition, and the whole force and fury of the state and its laws ought to come down on your head.) And I would say that maintaining oneself in good health through proper diet and exercise is morally obligatory, but I don't want to see any laws to that effect. State power cannot be allowed unlimited scope. I think Vallicella hits the nail on the head. What do y'all think?
I beg to differ, Alan. I don’t think we can legislate morality. Think about it, we can’t legislate morality by forcing someone to be kind, honest, considerate, respectful, etc. Furthermore, we can’t force someone to love. Love needs to be freely chosen, likewise, morality flows freely from the heart. What we do legislate against is immorality, when someone is dishonest, disrespectful, inconsiderate, etc. We are forced to protect ourselves and others from immorality, not morality.
Shalom,
Mark
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/10/2005 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | |
Alan Rhoda said...Ever heard that line? Maverick philosopher Bill Vallicella has this to say about it:
People who say this are often people who confuse the genus morality with the species sexual morality. But even upon acquiescence in this genus-species confusion, it is obvious that we can, do, and ought to legislate morality. After all, we have laws against rape, and we ought to have them. The fundamental problem, however, is the confusion of morality with sexual morality. That the two are distinct should be self-evident, hence I won’t spare the reader the pleasure of providing his own examples. The next time someone says, ‘You can’t legislate morality,’ you say: ‘All legislation is the legislation of morality; therefore, if you oppose the legislation of morality, then you oppose all legislation.’
Of course, from the fact that all legislation is the legislation of morality, it does not follow, nor is it true, that all morality ought to be legislated. In other words, it doesn't follow, nor is it true, that everything morally impermissible should be illegal, or that everything morally obligatory should be legally required. I would say that drinking oneself into a stupor is morally impermissible, but if it is done in private, the state and its laws should not get involved. (But drive on public roads in that condition, and the whole force and fury of the state and its laws ought to come down on your head.) And I would say that maintaining oneself in good health through proper diet and exercise is morally obligatory, but I don't want to see any laws to that effect. State power cannot be allowed unlimited scope. I think Vallicella hits the nail on the head. What do y'all think?
I agree. On this thread, though, there seems to be a genus/species confusion between morality and righteousness (right relationship to God). Since legislation cannot produce that kind of righteousness, some want to say that legislation is not useful for morality. These discussions are of different categories and shouldn't be conflated.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/10/2005 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | It is clear (at least to me) from Romans 13 that the fact that we should submit does not imply that the authority has some "right" to rule. It's a logical fallacy. We should submit to those who strike us, even when it is not justified.
I personally believe that legislation can be very useful in cultivating morality. Despite this, my issue is that Jesus is lord, not the majority.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 11/10/2005 8:59:00 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/11/2005 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | |
IMHO, what’s being conflated is the difference between legislating morality vs. legislating immorality. The slogan “you can’t legislate morality” was coined many years ago, and I would say it’s a rather empty phrase in itself that is currently being tossed around by both liberals and conservatives alike. I think the originally meaning of the term was simply, we can not create laws to make people good, we can only create laws to deal with the people that choose to act bad. In other words, you cannot legislate the intentions of the heart. We cannot pass a law that changes a man's heart. By passing a law you cannot make a bad man good. The Law cannot put the things of the Spirit in the heart. Laws against immorality are supposed to guard against the lowest aspects of human behavior so that a civil society can function. In other words, we can not take the murderess heart out of a murderer, in fact that would fall more under being right with God. What we can do is remove the murderess heart out of society, not because laws are written to make people moral but rather for controlling immoral behavior.
Laws cannot instill love of neighbor, for instance. But it can and does punish those who can't even bring themselves to keep from harming their neighbor. It says, if you can't love your neighbor, at least don't beat him to death with a baseball bat or cheat him out of money. In one sense I suppose you could say law is a moral function, but it's just not the highest moral function that should be sought. Martin Luther King once said, "The law cannot force my neighbor to love me. But it can restrain him from lynching me."
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/markshea/sheavings/legislatingmorality.asp
http://www.maninthemirror.org/weeklybriefing/wb0034.htm
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/legislating.html
"Law cannot supply the motivation that is distinctive of morality." Law is coercive; it says either "Do this or else" or "Don't do this or else." If I obey the law solely out of fear of punishment, I act out of self-interest, which is arguably not a moral motive. So the expression may point to a fundamental difference between moral and non-moral motivation. In that sense law can regulate conduct, but it can't make us obey for moral reasons. People can not be made moral by laws.
Laws regulate conduct, example; When a guy sees a woman walking to her car in a dark and secluded parking lot, and has immoral thoughts about her in his heart and desires to assault and rape her, but chooses not to because he might get caught and go to prison, it does not matter whether or not the laws changed his heart. All that matters to society is that the law altered his conduct.
If the law caused the individual to control his desires and reject his immoral impulses for fear of retribution, then the law has done its job, whether it has changed his heart or not.
We legislate so people won’t act out immoral impulse, but this does not create a moral heart.
However, it’s Interesting how historical evidence shows, that over time, laws can educate (and in effect change) the heart at least to some degree. So yes the law can actually help change attitudes and behaviors. Take slavery for instance. At the time our nation outlawed slavery, there were many people that disagreed with that law and thought they should be allowed to enslave an individual based on the color of their skin. Many thought that to do so was not immoral. Today, in America, you will be hard pressed to find someone that thinks slavery is morally acceptable. Over time, the law has caused people to think about slavery and the moral basis for outlawing slavery. Americans now obey the law not out of coercion but out of the heart’s desire to treat their fellow man, regardless of his color, as they would like to be treated.
Just as the implementation of laws restrain the actions of many for the good of society and change the heart of many for the betterment of society, the reverse is also true.
In 1960, very few individuals in America would agree with or accept the idea that abortion, the killing of an unborn child, was morally acceptable. It was certainly something they would not do as a pregnant mother or encourage their wife or girlfriend to do as the father of the baby or encourage their daughter to do. But because the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has ruled that abortion is legal, many Americans have, over time, accepted abortion as being morally acceptable. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court says the killing of an unborn child is acceptable has had a powerful and negative impact on the morals of hundreds upon thousands of citizens. Most people equate what the law says is acceptable with what is right and morally acceptable. "
These two examples show the power of government for either the accomplishment of good or evil. Romans 13 describes God’s plan that civil government is to encourage good through the fear of being punished for wrongdoing. God’s plan for civil government is to protect those that are moral and righteous while punishing those that are immoral and wicked.
A lesson taught by Thomas Aquinas. "Legislation is best when it is enacted in a manner that advances morality, but it should not be construed as defining morality."
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 11/11/2005 10:20:35 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/13/2005 1:19 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I have to disagree. Similar people raised under different rules can grow to be very different. Laws cannot always give the precise results desired, but they are very influential. The physical world and our everyday experiences can have a profound effect on our internal being; we are both dust of the earth and breath of God.
But, while morality can sometimes be legislated, it is not moral for a Christian to legislate.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 11/13/2005 12:29:28 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/13/2005 8:40 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
But, while morality can sometimes be legislated, it is not moral for a Christian to legislate. Please explain what is meant here... this sounds, to be frank, plainly absurd.
What specifically makes it immoral for a Christian to legislate? Or is it immoral for anyone to legislate? What's the difference? Is it the act of legislation that's immoral, or the end-product legislation itself?
What are you smokin', man?  | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 11/15/2005 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | If I'm teaching you how to hit a nail with a hammer and you have your thumb in the way, I will stop you and show you the correct way. Nothing to do with you disobeying me. My relation to you is not master/servent , but teacher/student. I have tried to clearly lay out the options to my kids in a manner that will show the wisdom of doing things the way I outline them. If the consequences of them doing the wrong thing is minor, I don't interfere and use the opportunity to show them a better way. If the consequence is major, like any good teacher I will prevent the action. Not because I am enforcing a rule, but guiding their hand.
The concepts I disagree with are ones that require language such as "legislate" , "disobeys" , and "make and enforce rules ". Jesus sought to teach and draw us into His world, I can't envision how that is possible to describe using a master/servent metaphor.
peace, don
The world's perfect, wouldn't change a thing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/15/2005 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...Please explain what is meant here... this sounds, to be frank, plainly absurd.
What specifically makes it immoral for a Christian to legislate? Or is it immoral for anyone to legislate? What's the difference? Is it the act of legislation that's immoral, or the end-product legislation itself?
What are you smokin', man? First we must define legislation. I see legislation as the act of instituting a law. A law is a standard which provides for coercive consequences if broken. Given these defintions, legislation is fundamentally opposed to Christianity. The Christian acknowledges Jesus as Lord. The church is the body of Christ, but Christ must always remain the head of that body. To recognize the legitimacy of any other lord is idolatry. Still, we are faced with those who deny Jesus' lordship. But we are told how to handle this. Jesus and Paul are in agreement; as much as is possible we submit to those who would rule over us. This is the way of Jesus. He allows himself to be subjected to the authority of those who oppose God. After all, if God wanted to do away with these authorites, he would. Every authority, no matter how they act, has been in some sense established by God.
Jesus tells us that we are not to be like those leaders who claim to rule over others for their own good. We are to imitate Jesus and take up the form of a slave.
I think I agree with Don on the question of parenting. I need to read him once again more carefully. It seems like we have the idea that if we don't punish our children, we do them a disservice. (And our belief in the innerrancy of a certain proverb supports that belief. Nevermind that the same book praises bribery.) However, there are ways of discipline that are not legalistic or built on punishment. We lack imagination.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/15/2005 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: However, there are ways of discipline that are not legalistic or built on punishment. We lack imagination.
Jeff: Whether you call them punishment or not, disciplinary "ways" are typically not preferred by their subjects. Or, if you are advocating the B. F. Skinner approach of using ONLY positive reinforcement to modify behavior, I would say you are advocating a method of parenting which does the exact opposite of leading a child to appreciate the value of longsuffering and endurance.
Once you concede that ANY degree of suffering of a child is necessitated in proper parenting, you have conceded that something very much like punishment is necessary. If you are saying that proper parenting can be done with ZERO suffering for the child, then you are claiming an ability that even God doesn't claim. For He claims that grievous discipline is necessary for some of us. Unless those verses must be discarded, too.
Zach: Nevermind that the same book (Proverbs) praises bribery.
Jeff: Where is that? I'm not aware of it.
Don: The concepts I disagree with are ones that require language such as "legislate" , "disobeys" , and "make and enforce rules ". Jesus sought to teach and draw us into His world, I can't envision how that is possible to describe using a master/servent metaphor.
Jeff: But you alluded to Israel, also. Israel was given rules for punishment. And God disciplined and/or punished the nation for rebellion. And Christ will judge all for their works one day. Moreover, God disciplines his own, even now. And that discipline is said to be grievous. Divine intervention which brings suffering for humans is undeniable unless we want to disregard the Bible. So if we want to disregard the words "lord" and "servant," fine. But a whole lot of verses have to go when we do.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 11/16/2005 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Don't we have to step back and try to discern God's motive for "punishment".
Is it a retribution for not following a divine fiat? or the natural outcome of not following the guidance of our loving teacher?
I believe that we see in the Old Testament the point of view of the children of Israel. As a child Israel sees the guidance of God as grevious punishment, but we are not children and share the heart of God.
I think the Jesus speaks to master/servent , remember John 15:15 .
peace, don
The world's perfect, wouldn't change a thing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/16/2005 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | I am not saying we must never use negative reinforcement. I draw a distinction between active punishment and refusing to give what we are not obligated to give. I am also not "saying that proper parenting can be done with ZERO suffering for the child." To stop punishing does not keep anyone from suffering. Spoiling a kid and punishing a kid are two extremes that are not appropriate.
The verses are 17:8 and 21:14.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 11/16/2005 4:06:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/16/2005 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: Spoiling a kid and punishing a kid are two extremes that are not appropriate.
Jeff: One man's extreme is another man's mediocre. I heard a call-in program on the radio about the subject. Some people say they're glad their parents punished them while others thought the opposite. I've heard the same difference of opinion apart from the radio program. I guess I'm wondering why, apart from the bible and my own experience, I should just believe you're right and I'm wrong. Where, for example, does the bible say or imply that all corporeal discipline is wrong? 1 Cor. says God caused people to be infirm and to "sleep" (seemingly meaning death) because of partaking of the Lord's table unworthily.
Zach: The verses are 17:8 and 21:14.
Jeff: Thanks, I'll check 'em out.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/16/2005 5:06:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/16/2005 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/17/2005 2:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Basically, I believe that being baptized into Christ means we should act as he did and taught. He teaches that we should not repay evil for evil. He was in a position to punish but instead took the place of the victim. I've backed off my "give anything" idea, but still children are human. They are made in the image of God just like adults. If my future kid does something that I consider wrong, I might not give him or her more of my food than essential. I might not allow them to use my television or phone. But I will not use violence. It is not Christlike.
What God does I don't fully understand. What Jesus will do in the end times may be very violent. But I don't see how this applies. It is Christ's "earthly" life and ministry that we are called to. In Revelation it is Jesus, not the saints, who fights. Even in God's sanctioning of war in the Old Testament what stands out is his fighting of the battle and his ownership of those under the ban. I don't understand all the "whys," but I do think the New Testament is clear that we are to be one with Christ even in our actions. We are to take up our cross. This is the supreme example of willing subjection to evil. Jesus was like a man who has power over the Nazis but lets himself be tattooed, tortured, and killed, and then tells his followers to do the same. Today we may "spiritualize" the call to take up our cross (and surely that dimension of sacrifice is legitimate and important), but to the disciples and the early church that watched him die and then watched themselves be killed, I doubt the two aspects could or should have been separated. We are not called to legislate but to submit to non-divine/illegitimate legislation.
As to Proverbs, I don't speak Hebrew (yet), but these statements concerning bribery and it's effectiveness look identical in form to the "spare the rod" verse. If one is imperative to the Christian, shouldn't the others be as well?
Sorry, I get so longwinded. This is my current hot-button issue. I love you guys, and I love the discussion.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
| 214 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:02 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|