Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
IvyOwl

Child training

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25268343

This is shocking. Why are these people allowed to breed? It makes Floo's religiously abusive upbringing look like a holiday camp!
Shaker

Spare the rod ...  

I found this bit particularly sick:

Quote:
For a child under one year old, a willowy branch or a 1ft (30cm) ruler is recommended. For older children, a larger branch or a belt.


The detail of it, I mean - the specificity of a willow branch or a standard 12-inch/30cm ruler. This reminds me of the Quranic injunction that you're allowed to beat your wife only as long as the stick or rod you use to do so is no thicker than your thumb ... words fail.
Derek

Re: Child training

IvyOwl wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25268343

This is shocking. Why are these people allowed to breed? It makes Floo's religiously abusive upbringing look like a holiday camp!


Tell me Ivy,  are evangelical Christians born again Christians? Are they the same denomination.
IvyOwl

Quote:
Tell me Ivy,  are evangelical Christians born again Christians? Are they the same denomination.


As far as I know evangelical is not synomomous with 'born again'. In any case none of the 'born agains' that I know would treat their children like this. I didn't post this in the Christian section as I see it as being more about a wider issue of how people can use their religion to justify bad behaviour rather than Christianty per se. It was not my intention to turn it into Christianity bashing.
trentvoyager

Very disturbing - still it looks from the report that people are realising this for what it is, child abuse.

Maybe the next time one of the authors violates the law in some (what is considered) minor way - like breaking the speed limit or jumping a red light, or even the moral laws like lying - someone ought to take a birch to them.

There are no words strong enough to express my contempt for these violent thugs.

That is what they are, violent child abusers - no amount of bastardised born again mumbo jumbo justifies what they are doing.
Shaker

 
Derek

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
Tell me Ivy,  are evangelical Christians born again Christians? Are they the same denomination.


As far as I know evangelical is not synomomous with 'born again'. In any case none of the 'born agains' that I know would treat their children like this. I didn't post this in the Christian section as I see it as being more about a wider issue of how people can use their religion to justify bad behaviour rather than Christianty per se. It was not my intention to turn it into Christianity bashing.


Neither am I.  I genuinely did not know and the article does say that thousands of evangelists have bought the book with three ending up killing their children,  presumably as a result of this book. I just wanted to get a better perspective on who is buying the book. I am not singling out any denomination to point a figure at. I just want to be aware of who is buying the book.
gone

Re: Child training

Deleted
cymrudynnion

Re: Child training

Floo wrote:
IvyOwl wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25268343

This is shocking. Why are these people allowed to breed? It makes Floo's religiously abusive upbringing look like a holiday camp!


Deleted
As did most children of our vintage, it didn't them any harm and behaviour was much better than from the youth of today
Lexilogio

I disagree. I think that it caused enormous harm, and created cycles that still go on in some families.

There is nothing wrong with discipline - but some go overboard.

I am one who is able to get my kids to realise they have done wrong and amend their behaviour without resorting to raising a hand to them.
Ketty

trentvoyager wrote:
Very disturbing - still it looks from the report that people are realising this for what it is, child abuse.

Maybe the next time one of the authors violates the law in some (what is considered) minor way - like breaking the speed limit or jumping a red light, or even the moral laws like lying - someone ought to take a birch to them.

There are no words strong enough to express my contempt for these violent thugs.

That is what they are, violent child abusers - no amount of bastardised born again mumbo jumbo justifies what they are doing.


Jim

Re: Child training

"our vintage", Cym?
Dunno about you, but I well remember the sadistic brute of a so-called infant teacher belting me with a tawse (a one inch thick, ten inch long leather belt) for 'making a mess' on a painting that I was supposed to be creating.
The fact that I could not see what I was supposed to be painting is neither here nor there.

And "didn't do us any harm"?
Did it do any good?
One chap - sadly, I attended his funeral last week, as he died of motor neuron disease - had the tawse, or 'belt' virtually every day throughout his school years.
Yes, he was a clown, and a pain sometimes. In retrospect he did things as an attention seeker. He was never cruel, or a bully, or a vindictive sort, though.
Did the belt improve him?
Not a jot.
It DID toughen his hands, though.
That's about all.
I think we look back on corporal punishment through the rose tinted glasses of memory.
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
I disagree. I think that it caused enormous harm, and created cycles that still go on in some families.

There is nothing wrong with discipline - but some go overboard.

I am one who is able to get my kids to realise they have done wrong and amend their behaviour without resorting to raising a hand to them.

That  

Whenever I hear the old "Well it never did me any harm ..." line trotted out, I always reply, "Well it clearly did do this much harm: it left you thinking that inflicting pain on a subject smaller, weaker and more defenceless than you is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate manner of discipline. I'd call that harm."
IvyOwl

Cym wrote

Quote:
As did most children of our vintage, it didn't them any harm and behaviour was much better than from the youth of today


Jim wrote

Quote:
I think we look back on corporal punishment through the rose tinted glasses of memory.


There is also the tendancy to look back on standards of behaviour through those 'rose tinted glasses'

Was the behaviour any better in the so called good old days when kids were often punished by smacking or beatings? And if the behaviour is worse now than then, is it the lack of smacks/corporal punishment that's causing it?

Did being thrashed really make anyone behave better and if it did in the short term what price the long term? It shouldn't be fear that makes us behave well there are other ways to get the message across and it will depend on the individual child and circumstances.

Misbehaving and angry children are very trying for any parent. It's not always easy to deal with and will depend on the child. But hitting them especially with impliments is just plain abuse /cruelty bullying and any change in behaviour it produces will be at a cost in long term psychological problems.

I'm interested in the state of mind of the parents that bought the dreadful book of the OP. How were they so easily manipulated (I dare say some of them didn't need any manipulation) into being such thugs?

Of course the OT God can be seen as the arch thug getting people to believe in him through fear of horrendous punishments. Some Christians haven't fully moved on from that version of God. Although of course that ones does rather underpin the needing to be saved by the loving version.
IvyOwl

Quote:
Whenever I hear the old "Well it never did me any harm ..." line trotted out, I always reply, "Well it clearly did do this much harm: it left you thinking that inflicting pain on a subject smaller, weaker and more defenceless than you is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate manner of discipline. I'd call that harm."


EXACTLY!
Sebastian Toe

Re: Child training

Jim wrote:

And "didn't do us any harm"?
Did it do any good?
.

I was belted with a Lochgelly Leather by the headmaster in secondary.
My crime? I tripped and fell down some steps just as he was walking around the corner!

What good did it do me?
Well from that moment on I lost all and any respect I had for that man.

I told him that at a school reunion some years later.
He looked quite surprised, but then at least he was man enough to apologise.
Ketty

Q: Did it do me any harm?  
A: Yes, it caused pain, it caused welts and bruising - that was the physical harm.  The emotional harm was that I hated the person who hurt me.  The psychological harm could have been I had a skewed view of what is 'love': love means anger, and pain and cold detachment?

Q: Did it do me any good?
A: Not at the time, no.  Many years later it helped me learn what is is to obey the Lord's command to honour your parents.  It helped me learn about forgiveness and compassion and what it is to truly love.

It also taught me that those who think they are in control, are very often totally out of control.
gone

deleted
cymrudynnion

Floo wrote:
Beating kids does a lot of harm, not only physically! Anyone advocating 'spare the rod and spoil the child' is a an abuser. My paternal grandmother got her kicks beating religion into her kids, she would often quote that phrase as she was thrashing them, the evil woman!
I'm ;inking this because Floo has deleted the post I replied to and the thread has developed.
Today, an adult cannot raise their hand, their voice, their eyes or any poart of their body before a child claims abuse. Similarly with regard to registers as soon as an adult does exercise control of a situation, individuals side with the child to tell an adult they are wrong. Our grandchildren touch our hob when not in use and we say No Hot Hot burn Naughty, yet they repeat it when the hob is on and we spend a couple of hours in Casualty. On the other hand, our grandchildren are told do not go into that **** their is a hurt in there and they do go in, before they aren't hurt I grab them and slap their hand saying no. It so happens i have sharp instruments in that **** and I don't want them hurt. I do support the idea of inflicting physical pain on a child in such circumstances and in discipline.
Lexilogio

cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
Beating kids does a lot of harm, not only physically! Anyone advocating 'spare the rod and spoil the child' is a an abuser. My paternal grandmother got her kicks beating religion into her kids, she would often quote that phrase as she was thrashing them, the evil woman!
I'm ;inking this because Floo has deleted the post I replied to and the thread has developed.
Today, an adult cannot raise their hand, their voice, their eyes or any poart of their body before a child claims abuse. Similarly with regard to registers as soon as an adult does exercise control of a situation, individuals side with the child to tell an adult they are wrong. Our grandchildren touch our hob when not in use and we say No Hot Hot burn Naughty, yet they repeat it when the hob is on and we spend a couple of hours in Casualty. On the other hand, our grandchildren are told do not go into that **** their is a hurt in there and they do go in, before they aren't hurt I grab them and slap their hand saying no. It so happens i have sharp instruments in that **** and I don't want them hurt. I do support the idea of inflicting physical pain on a child in such circumstances and in discipline.


There is a big difference between a short, and relatively light smack on the hand to a toddler about to do something dangerous, and beating a child. But it should still be a last resort. I found toddlers were easily distracted so the danger could be put out of reach.
Ketty

cymrudynnion wrote:
Today, an adult cannot raise their hand, their voice, their eyes or any poart of their body before a child claims abuse.


That's rather a Daily Hatemail type of hysterical response, which doesn't really occur in real life - unless a child says they've been abused, or show signs of being abused.   Thankfully, society now actually listens to children in this regard, because most children do not lie when telling a trusted adult about what happens to them.

cymrudynnion wrote:
Similarly with regard to registers as soon as an adult does exercise control of a situation, individuals side with the child to tell an adult they are wrong.


Thank the Lord for that!  When we live in a world with people living in it who see nothing wrong with, for example, people accessing child porn and think it's perfectly acceptable to do so because it happens to have been made in part of the world where such things are not illegal.

Yes, sometimes some adults are very wrong indeed!  

cymrudynnion wrote:
Our grandchildren touch our hob when not in use and we say No Hot Hot burn Naughty, yet they repeat it when the hob is on and we spend a couple of hours in Casualty.


Poor children!     One hopes the damage was not too significant and that they are now fully healed.

cymrudynnion wrote:
On the other hand, our grandchildren are told do not go into that **** their is a hurt in there and they do go in, before they aren't hurt I grab them and slap their hand saying no. It so happens i have sharp instruments in that ****


I hope I misunderstand what you seem to be saying here.

cymrudynnion wrote:
and I don't want them hurt. I do support the idea of inflicting physical pain on a child in such circumstances and in discipline.


As Lexi said there is a vast difference between a short sharp tap done to prevent danger, and beating a child.   We must continue to legislate to protect our innocents from being abused by adults who are incapable of seeing a child as a human being with rights: the right not to be abused.  This is a fundamental human right which, sadly, is not enjoyed by many children all over the world.
cymrudynnion

Lexilogio wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Floo wrote:
Beating kids does a lot of harm, not only physically! Anyone advocating 'spare the rod and spoil the child' is a an abuser. My paternal grandmother got her kicks beating religion into her kids, she would often quote that phrase as she was thrashing them, the evil woman!
I'm ;inking this because Floo has deleted the post I replied to and the thread has developed.
Today, an adult cannot raise their hand, their voice, their eyes or any poart of their body before a child claims abuse. Similarly with regard to registers as soon as an adult does exercise control of a situation, individuals side with the child to tell an adult they are wrong. Our grandchildren touch our hob when not in use and we say No Hot Hot burn Naughty, yet they repeat it when the hob is on and we spend a couple of hours in Casualty. On the other hand, our grandchildren are told do not go into that **** their is a hurt in there and they do go in, before they aren't hurt I grab them and slap their hand saying no. It so happens i have sharp instruments in that **** and I don't want them hurt. I do support the idea of inflicting physical pain on a child in such circumstances and in discipline.


There is a big difference between a short, and relatively light smack on the hand to a toddler about to do something dangerous, and beating a child. But it should still be a last resort. I found toddlers were easily distracted so the danger could be put out of reach.
Yes a bit of a difference but I still would support the slapping of a child.
Ketty can I suggest you reread my post and not try to dissect it out of context as you have done.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Thank the Lord for that!  When we live in a world with people living in it who see nothing wrong with, for example, people accessing child porn and think it's perfectly acceptable to do so because it happens to have been made in part of the world where such things are not illegal.

Actually I'm not sure that I know of any jurisdiction where child pornography - the making or the possession or the viewing of - isn't illegal. It's true that the only people who could ever possibly see child pornography as somehow 'right' are those with a sexual interest in children to some degree, but even these people who make, distribute and view such material go to such lengths to keep it secret precisely because they know that it's both morally wrong (almost, but not quite entirely, universally to nearly everyone else) and legally wrong as well.

I'm open to correction on this, of course: there may be somewhere in the world where it's not illegal - I just find it extremely hard to believe.
Ketty

cymrudynnion wrote:

Ketty can I suggest you reread my post and not try to dissect it out of context as you have done.


You can suggest that, of course.

However my reply is that I dissected, or broke it down into its various comments entirely within context.  It's okay Cymru, you're not forced to try and explain what you mean - but it does help if you want to be understood, or at least to not be misunderstood.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Actually I'm not sure that I know of any jurisdiction where child pornography - the making or the possession or the viewing of - isn't illegal. It's true that the only people who could ever possibly see child pornography as somehow 'right' are those with a sexual interest in children to some degree, but even these people who make, distribute and view such material go to such lengths to keep it secret precisely because they know that it's both morally wrong (almost, but not quite entirely, universally to nearly everyone else) and legally wrong as well.

I'm open to correction on this, of course: there may be somewhere in the world where it's not illegal - I just find it extremely hard to believe.


Me too, but it has been said to me by a poster that they do not have a problem with people accessing such things if they are made/produced in a place where it's not illegal to do so.  

As an aside, the same poster told me that they would not object to the death penalty being imposed on homosexuals if, say for example, Sharia Law was imposed here and it became legal for the 'state' to kill Gays.  

Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Actually I'm not sure that I know of any jurisdiction where child pornography - the making or the possession or the viewing of - isn't illegal. It's true that the only people who could ever possibly see child pornography as somehow 'right' are those with a sexual interest in children to some degree, but even these people who make, distribute and view such material go to such lengths to keep it secret precisely because they know that it's both morally wrong (almost, but not quite entirely, universally to nearly everyone else) and legally wrong as well.

I'm open to correction on this, of course: there may be somewhere in the world where it's not illegal - I just find it extremely hard to believe.


Me too, but it has been said to me by a poster that they do not have a problem with people accessing such things if they are made/produced in a place where it's not illegal to do so.  

As an aside, the same poster told me that they would not object to the death penalty being imposed on homosexuals if, say for example, Sharia Law was imposed here and it became legal for the 'state' to kill Gays.  


A poster here on the present forum, perchance?
Ketty

Shaker wrote:

A poster here on the presnt forum, perchance?


I confirm it's not been said on here.
Shaker

Hairy snuff.
Ketty

I don't think it would be at all smart of anyone to say such things on here.  Unfortunately, it doesn't stop people holding such disgusting opinions.
cymrudynnion

Ketty wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:

Ketty can I suggest you reread my post and not try to dissect it out of context as you have done.


You can suggest that, of course.

However my reply is that I dissected, or broke it down into its various comments entirely within context.  It's okay Cymru, you're not forced to try and explain what you mean - but it does help if you want to be understood, or at least to not be misunderstood.
No Ketty look at the sentence that starts Our grandchildren touch, I did not say they had I said touch. No missunderstanding there but you have turned it around as if they had. We would not put our grandchildren in a position of danger but you concluded you hoped they did not get burned or suffered. Your profession speaks volumes how to spin statements in your favour.
cymrudynnion

Shaker wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Thank the Lord for that!  When we live in a world with people living in it who see nothing wrong with, for example, people accessing child porn and think it's perfectly acceptable to do so because it happens to have been made in part of the world where such things are not illegal.

Actually I'm not sure that I know of any jurisdiction where child pornography - the making or the possession or the viewing of - isn't illegal. It's true that the only people who could ever possibly see child pornography as somehow 'right' are those with a sexual interest in children to some degree, but even these people who make, distribute and view such material go to such lengths to keep it secret precisely because they know that it's both morally wrong (almost, but not quite entirely, universally to nearly everyone else) and legally wrong as well.

I'm open to correction on this, of course: there may be somewhere in the world where it's not illegal - I just find it extremely hard to believe.
Perhaps the Far East?
Ketty

cymrudynnion wrote:
Shaker wrote:

I'm open to correction on this, of course: there may be somewhere in the world where it's not illegal - I just find it extremely hard to believe.


Perhaps the Far East?


Whereabouts in the Far East?
Ketty

cymrudynnion wrote:
No Ketty look at the sentence that starts Our grandchildren touch, I did not say they had I said touch. No missunderstanding there but you have turned it around as if they had.




cymrudynnion wrote:
We would not put our grandchildren in a position of danger


Glad to hear it.  Perhaps best never to take them to the Far East, just in case . . .

cymrudynnion wrote:
but you concluded you hoped they did not get burned or suffered. Your profession speaks volumes how to spin statements in your favour.


Powwow

Children and Lying

http://www.truthaboutdeception.co...deception/children-and-lying.html

The Martensville sex abuse hoax
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonst...1a825-8744-48a7-943f-b6319f26f578

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9...wan-settles-martensville-sex-case

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum