Abortion: Why abortion is bad for women (and benefits male entitlement)

Many people on the political left support abortion as a so-called "right". Most modern feminists support abortion as a form of "women's empowerment". However, I myself am a feminist of the pro-life sort, and I oppose abortion in all cases, as well as any unnatural death  As a man, I am to look out for the welfare of women. Abortion is bad for women.

The Sixth Commandment is spelled out in Exodus 20:13 KJV:

Thou shalt not kill.

The Greek root word repeating the Sixth Commandment is φονος (Latin: phonos) and refers here to any death apart from natural death, including even accidental death. The ancients considered an unborn child to be a valid child from the point of conception. Whenever an abortion was committed in the Early Church, the man who got her pregnant was also charged with fornication for leading her down the wrong path. Any abortifacient herbs were considered an illicit substance under the Greek root word μεθυσος (Latin: methusos). No abortions happened in the Old Testament because of how abortifacients were classified in terms of them being illicit drugs. 

You can be feminist and be pro-life. The foremothers of the feminist movement actively warned women of the dangers of abortion. Abortion is bad for women. That is because the procedure consists of a medically-induced miscarriage, with the stillborn child coming out on his/her due date. This usually causes trauma in women. Most women only go to the abortion clinic once, and then vow never to go there again as their baby comes out stillborn. 

Science proves that an unborn child is a human life. The genetics of an unborn child are unique to the individual unborn child. The unborn child always has the genes of both the mother and the father, with this setup being the case since the moment of conception. 

Abortion ultimately benefits male entitlement, as it is an easy way for a man to escape responsibility as a man, including fatherly responsibility. Many times, the father of the unborn child pressures the mother to get an abortion, with this usually coming with the intent to cover up for an extramarital affair or liaison. Abortion is a good way to cover up for sexual immorality, including rape.

I am opposed to abortion even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. In the case of rape and incest, abortion serves to cover up the evidence of sexual offenses perpetrated against women and children. In the case of life of the mother, the father should be able to care for the baby in most instances. Men can nurture, but most men feel insecure in that role. They need to man up and take responsibility for being a father. 

There is an east way to prevent abortions. If a man wants to not get a woman pregnant, he can simply keep it in his pants. Most abortion is perpetrated against an unborn child conceived out of wedlock. Thus, all sexual relations must take place within the context of marriage. This Christian standard is ultimately spelled out in the New Testament by the Greek root word πορνεία (Latin: porneia). See 1Cor. 7:1-5. 

Abortion can be used to cover up the evidence for moral crimes against women, If women were not allowed to get abortions, the pregnant bellies of women would provide clear evidence of sexually amoral behavior on the part of men, including rape and incest. One compelling argument from the left in terms of legal abortion is the existence of pregnancy abusers. A pregnancy abuser gets his wife pregnant, and keeps her pregnant, in order to keep her quartered in the house. However, that pregnancy is evidence of rape, and it comes from rape pretty much always. Lock up the defiled rapist who quarters his wife like that, and let the child have a chance at life. A better way to liberate women is to have stronger anti-rape statutes, including a ban on marital rape. No child should die in order to liberate a woman. 

It is a myth that women are having abortions done left and right. Abortion is a rare procedure. Therefore, a lot of women are listening to their maternal intuition when they refuse to get an abortion themselves. A procedure that unpopular can be easily done away with.\

Being pro-life does not necessitate being pro-birth. I support social welfare for all Americans, from the womb to the tomb. I support a safety net for those who need it, such as universal healthcare and daycare. When certain expenses are taken care of by the state, that leaves with more money in the pockets of ordinary American families. The Bible also allows for granting free money to the poor as part of a church tax (see 1Cor. 16:1-2). No Christian family went hungry in the Early Church, as Christian church parishes then were close-knit enclaves that shunned the outside world. I also oppose all unnatural death, including war and the death penalty. 

Rights of the unborn are children's rights. Abortion was a concept in the Early Church, and it was hated, even among women. A mother who drank abortifacient tea as an herbal "remedy" was seen as a cold and unfeeling mother. Even today, even most pro-choice women avoid abortion clinics due to it being against their maternal intuition. An unborn child is a valid child, in need of protection just like children do outside of the womb. 

Abortion is not the same as women's health. When a doctor reaches into the birth canal, that counts as a D&C, not an abortion, and that only happens once the baby has died naturally in the womb. Abortion is usually given as a prescription drug known as an abortifacient. The baby passes on his/her due date, but stillborn. 

I do not hate women as a pro-lifer. I am simply looking out for women, much like a responsible gentleman does as a courtesy to the opposite sex. I am a pro-life feminist. Abortion is bad for women, and benefits me as a man. I avoid sexual relations with women because I don't have a wife, and this alone makes sure that no woman gets an abortion because of me. Married sex is the safest sex out there, and the best place to have a child is in the context of a Christian marriage between one adult man and one adult woman. However, all children should be cherished, including those born out of wedlock or otherwise unplanned. If I were an entitled man, and slept around, I would benefit from legal abortion in that I wouldn't have to care for a child - I could just pressure the woman I am with to get an abortion. However, I find it easier to just not get women pregnant out of wedlock, and thus I am not allowed to have sex with any woman, as I do not have a wife. I don't want any woman to get an abortion, as abortion is bad for women, being that it is a medically-induced miscarriage. In Christian feminism, a man can look out for women in this regard, as long as he is a gentleman about it.

The depraved and entitled mothers who murder children in the womb, and all who aid and abet, will be forever cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent!

Child discipline: How to discipline your child without punitive measures

Many parents want their children to have discipline. This is a common goal for parents to have. However, most American parents equate discipline with punishment. This is a common attitude amongst American parents. However, there are better ways to discipline your child than punitive measures.

God's Law on child discipline is spelled out in Ephesians 6:4 KJV:

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 

This first stanza clarifies for the second that discipline should not hurt. The Greek root word translated "provoke...to wrath" is παροργίζο (Latin: parorgizo) and refers here to offenses or damages, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. It is one thing to stop spanking your child. However, it is not enough to stop spanking your child, or even stop punishing them altogether for that reason. You need to avoid offense in children. Avoiding offense in children is the same as avoiding offense in other adults. Just as hurt feelings are inevitable in relations between adults, hurt feelings are inevitable in children when dealing with them. Thus, in order to avoid offense in children, you need to be willing to give a meaningful apology whenever you hurt your child's feelings. Usually, all that is necessary is a reassurance of good intent coming from parents, in the form of an informal apology, whenever a child cannot accept limits set not out of anger, such as "I'm sorry, but I had to set X limit for Y reasons". However, if you ever lose your cool with your child as a parent, including while setting limits, you definitely need to give a formal apology for hurting their feelings with your anger, such as "I apologize for losing my temper with you". and then commit never to lose your cool with your child ever again, as any parent anger directed towards children is entitlement,  and was seen as entitlement in the Early Church. This commandment cross-references the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments, with the Apostle Paul here convicting a group of Greek Christian parents who brought into the church their pagan custom of patrias potestas, which is a Latin phrase roughly translating to "power to the parent", namely the power to impose punitive sanctions on children, such as spanking or other forms of punishment of children. However, this commandment was ultimately received as prohibiting any offenses as perceived by a child. Paul. contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and oppoeed any and all punitive parenting in his secular writings. Attachment parenting was banned under Roman law, but the Early Christians did it anyway, obeying God over men.

The second stanza of this commandment spells out what discipline is acceptable, with the first stanza ruling out anything punitive with a child. The Greek root word translated "nurture" is παιδεία (Latin: paideia) and refers to a certain specific form of nurturing, namely of the teaching type. Christian parents in the Early Church looked for preferred behaviors in children, usually in the form of self-discipline and self-control. Whenever children showed preferred behaviors, they were given praise and encouragement. Children were left to find discipline on their own, and when they did, their parents encouraged them to keep working on their self-improvement. Christian parents in the Early Church set a good example for their children to follow, but backed this example up with praise and encouragement, not punishment or shaming. Children also should have religious instruction, as religion is a human need for children and adults alike. The Greek root word translated "admonition" is νουθεσία (Latin: nouthesia) and is better translated as "instruction" in more modern versions of the Bible. The Apostle Paul here was referring to religious instruction. Starting at around age 6, fathers left out a copy of the Bible for children to discover and explore, with the copy of the Bible left open to a reassuring passage. When children were caught in the act of studying the Bible, they were given lavish praise and encouragement for more Bible study of the same. Then, fathers interjected something along the lines of "you can ask me anything about that book". From there, religious instruction came in question and answer format, with children being curious about Scripture, and with fathers giving pointers on the context. This second stanza points out the Hebraic tradition of positive reinforcement, meaning catching children being good. Positive reinforcement is an ancient Hebraic tradition predating the coming of Christ by thousands of years.

Every child is different. Some children are more spirited, and some are more easygoing. The idea is to start out setting no limits apart from when children are endangering themselves or others. A more easygoing child is the kind of child to surrender to their parents, and ask them to set limits for them, in which case you should set more limits for that particular child. A more spirited child needs time to form their own discipline, and then be praised when they do find discipline. 

Sometimes, a parent has to set limits for the safety of children and/or others. However, children accepting limits like that is another story. Whenever your child cannot accept a set limit, you need to apologize for hurting their feelings. Usually, all that is necessary is an informal apology when limits were not set out of anger, to prove non-entitlement. However, if you lose your cool with your child as a parent, you definitely need to give a formal apology for hurting your child's feelings with your anger, as any parent anger directed towards children alone is entitlement, and was seen as entitlement in the Early Church. 

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be cast forever into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath day and night forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

"Benign" deprivation: Why saying "no" to children "frequent and often" can be seen as child abuse

Many parents buy into the concept of "benign" deprivation. Most American parents make it a point to say "no" to most everything that a child wants. This is a common attitude amongst American parents. However, most American parents need an attitude adjustment on this issue. Saying "no" to children "frequent and often" is considered child abuse when it offends the child, which is pretty much always.

God's Law on child abuse is spelled out in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers here to offenses or damages, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. The key here to not abusing your child is to avoid offense in children. Avoiding offense in children is the same as avoiding offense in other adults. Just like hurt feelings are inevitable in relations between adults, hurt feelings are also inevitable in children when dealing with them. One thing that hurts a child's feelings is to say "no" to them "frequent and often". The idea behind avoiding offense in children is to avoid saying "no" to a child, or setting limits with them altogether, except when absolutely necessary for the safety of children and/or others. When children cannot accept limits not set out of anger, you need to give an informal apology for hurting your child's feelings with such limits, such as "I'm sorry, but I have to set X limits for Y reasons". However, if you ever lose your cool with your child as a parent, including while setting limits, you definitely need to give a formal apology for hurting your child's feelings with your anger, such as "I apologize for losing my temper with you", and then commit never to lose your cool with your child ever again, as any parent anger directed towards a child is entitlement, and was seen as entitlement in the Early Church. This commandment cross-references the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments, with the Apostle Paul here convicting a group of Greek Christians who brought into the church their pagan custom of patrias porestas, which is a Latin phrase roughly translating to "power to the parent", namely the power to impose punitive sanctions on children, such as spanking or other forms of punishment of children. However, this commandment was ultimately received by the parish at Ephesus as prohibiting all forms of offenses stemming from entitlement as perceived by the child, at minimum. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punitive parenting in his secular writings. Attachment parenting was banned under Roman law, but the Early Christians did it anyway,  obeying God over men.

The Early Christians were hated largely for being too "soft" on their children. The Early Christians dd set limits with children, but only for safety concerns. A modern example of this is when children play ball inside, in which case the parent asks politely and gratefully for the game of ball to go outside. Children could be physically restrained in the Early Church, but only in the lightest of forms, and only for things such as running into oncoming traffic. Apart from that, children were left free reign. When children made messes, parents got a good laugh before picking up the mess. 

A common place of contention in conventional parenting today is the store. Most parents think that giving children what they want in the store leads to them wanting "more  more, and then some". However, the child is usually asking for something inexpensive such as a candy bar. Let them have it. In the Early Church, children usually wanted licorice from the candy stand, in which case the parent asked for the item, and then she paid for it before handing it back to the child to enjoy. You may find that children aren't asking for much. All they care about is that it comes from YOU.

The idea when offering things to your child is to avoid choice overload. For example, when at the restaurant, give them a list of items on the menu, and see what they choose. If they choose something entirely different, then go with that and scrap all of the other choices you gave them. Try to keep the list of items short, preferably limiting the number of options to 2. 

Christian parents in the Early Church did not order children around. Instead, they politely asked things of their children from the bottom of their heart, with the child usually trusting in parents enough for immediate compliance. The key to gaining the trust of children is to avoid punishing them, and also avoid offending them in any way, shape, or form. If you have punished or offended them before, you need to repent in front of your child, promising never to offend them ever again. See Matt. 22:35-40; 25:31-46.  

Children only need limits when they are acting in a dangerous manner. Children will form their own moral beliefs as they get older, with religion being a human need for children and adults alike. Most children will find God on their own, and will need minimal guidance when they ask questions about the context of what they are reading in the Bible. I myself do not want a child to be in lockstep with my values, necessarily. I want them to simply have a set of values, with them choosing the set of values that they want to live by. If a child chooses to have no values at all, that brings shame onto the parents of the child for child abuse, or else anyone else who spiritually abused the child enough for them to reject all religion. Usually, religious development starts at age 6 naturally, which is when Christian parents should leave out a Bible, and leave it open at the most reassuring verse you can find, such as the Beatitudes. 

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be cast forever into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath day and night forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

"Biblical spanking": Why the rod verses in Proverbs are repealed verses

Many parents use the Bible as an excuse for spanking their child. In the book of Proverbs, there exist 5 passages known as rod verses. These verses are often used as an argument for spanking a child. However, these verses are ultimately repealed verses. Nowhere does the Bible say to spank a child. 

There are 6 verses that mention the rod in the book of Proverbs, with the most widely quoted verse being Proverbs 13:24 KJV:

He who spareth his rod hateth his son: but he who loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

The Hebrew root word translated "son" is ben and refers to a mature adult son. The Hebrew root word translated "rod" is shebet and refers to, in the context of Proverbs, the rod of correction, namely a switch. The rod verses in Proverbs ultimately refer to a form of judicial corporal punishment known as the 40 minus 1 lashes, administered to a father or next-of-kin, to the bare back, in the context of a courtroom, as a sentence for a crime. Under Jewish law in the Old Testament, striking  another Jew was prohibited outside the context of a courtroom, with striking a minor child being prohibited in all settings. The 40 minus 1 lashes were a final warning before an errant son was put to death, and could only exist in that given context. The reason for this commandment is that, otherwise, the father would just refuse to whip his son, as Jewish parents then were slow to blame their adult children for anything.

Christ died on the cross in order to repeal the harsh punishments of the Old Testament. Christ experienced both capital and corporal punishment unjustly, and so the Early Christians banned such punishments, and shunned all whippings and executions under Roman law. It is a myth that the Early Christians were well-integrated into Greco-Roman society, with the Early Christians living in enclaves in big cities, shunning the outside Greco-Roman world. Corporal punishment seeped its way into the Christian Church by way of European pagan influence on the Western Christian Church, with the European pagans being brutes with their children.

The teaching of "biblical spanking" is a man-made teaching. Nowhere in the New Testament are the rod verses repeated, with Heb. 12:5-6 referring to trials and tribulations being sent by God the way of His elect. However, the Bible does weigh in on the spanking issue, and then some. See Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers here to offenses or damages, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. It is one thing to stop spanking your child. However, it is not enough to stop spanking your child, or even stop punishing your child altogether for that matter. You need to avoid offense in children. A child has the right to take offense when their parents are acting entitled, including towards them. Children usually take it personally by crying tears of displeasure. Whenever your child takes it personally, you need to be willing to give an apology as soon as possible. Usually, all that is necessary is an informal apology whenever you hurt your child's feelings with limits not set out if anger, such as "I'm sorry, but I had to set X limit for Y reasons". However, if you ever lose your cool with your child as a parent, including while setting limits, you definitely need to give a formal apology for hurting your child's feelings with your anger, such as "I apologize for losing my temper with you", and then commit never to lose your cool with your child ever again, as any parent anger directed towards children alone is entitlement, and was seen aa entitlement in the Early Church. Whenever your child takes it personally, with their feelings being hurt, you should apologize appropriately, lest it be officially an offense. This commandment cross-references the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments, with the Apostle Paul here convicting a group of Greek Christian parents who brought into the church their pagan custom of patrias potestas, which is a Latin phrase roughly translating to "power to the parent", namely the power to impose punitive sanctions on children, such as spanking or other forms of punishment of children. However, this commandment was ultimately received by the parish at Colossae as prohibiting any offense in children stemming from entitlement in parents, at minimum. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punitive parenting in his secular writings. Attachment parenting was banned under Roman law, but the Early Christians did it anyway, obeying God over men.

Parent anger directed towards children was completely prohibited in the Early Church.  Most parents in the Early Church were motivated by anxiety, being expressed usually as worry or concern. The only time parents were allowed to get angry was to protect their child from interlopers. Anger at a child then was seen as akin to a viper - maybe the child was given some warning, but that was about it.

Children in the Early Church were not seen as bad or sinful, even when they acted up. Whenever children got into mischief, the parents had a good laugh before cleaning up their messes. Children in the Early Church were instead seen as among the poor and the vulnerable, with God identifying with the vulnerability of children. See Matt. 25:31-46. 

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be cast forever into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath day and night forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Adult attraction to children: Individual responsibility for adults attracted to children

Many adults and organizations support the idea of collective responsibility. That means stopping a would-be defied sex offender from sexually abusing a child/ However, every single adult is capable of sexually abusing a child under the right/wrong conditions. 

All adults are cursed with the sin nature of mankind. We as a species are flawed creatures, and are all capable of harming a child in some way or another as depraved and decadent adults. Most child sexual abuse happens as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that an adult is faced with. Usually, there is a heartache involved where the perpetrator feels sexual lust to the point of physical pain, all due to unmet sexual needs n relation to children.

The Greek root word translating "fornication" is πορνεία (Latin: porneia) and refers here to sexual relations with a child, as children are incapable of marriage, and all sexual relations have to occur within the context of a Christian marriage are prohibited. A groom has to be the same age as the bride, or else the bride has to be up to 4 years older. Intergenerational marriage was banned under Christian customary law then. The way out of a fornication habit is to masturbate to the first image that comes to mind. For most men, this mental image is an image of his daughter.

Most child sexual abuse has nothing to do with pedophilia. Most child rapes take place as a part of the "electra" complex. The idea is that the father is attracted to his daughter in a way that she isn't attracted to him. The home sexual dynamic goes in the form of a criss-cross, with boys having a dead end attraction, and girls having a mutually unrequited sexual dynamic. However, no young girl wants to have sex with her fathers. Instead, all she wants to do is masturbate to sexual fantasies of his daughter.

The solution to child sexual abuse is to allow for righteous masturbation to sexual thoughts of children. Whenever an adult has a sexual inkling for a child, they should masturbate to sexual thoughts of that child. Most child sexual abuse happens when an adult represses their sex drive for children, with this sexual narcissist coming out onto the child like a ton of bricks. Righteous masturbation means pornography, meaning masturbation for health reasons. In the Early Church, masturbation without pornography was seen as a way out of sexual sin, not the way in. 

Most child sexual abusers are not pedophiles. A pedophile is not an anger packet directed towards a child. A pedophile is a human being with a sexual preference for children under age 14. Pedophilia is a form of of arrested sexual development. Pedophiles start out being attracted to same age peers, but as they get olde, their attraction figures stage do not. Most pedophiles have a form of immature autism of the moderate-severe type, where their attractions reflect their emotional; immaturity. If you see a man with autism just click with children, and get along with children naturally, think pedophile, but the right kind. I myself am a pedophile, and I also have autism of the moderate-mild level. I have no desire to have any close friends except with children. Autism means "narrow focus". When that narrow focus is on children, that usually means that the autistic adult is a pedophile.

I myself am a flawed pedophilic adult. I myself committed mainly street harassment n the form of flirting with children. 1 out of 4 pedophiles have sexually abused a child in the past, and usually, these offenders have a severe form of autism. Most pedophilic sexual offenses come from lack of boundaries, not any intent to cause harm. I did not intend to cause harm to my cousin, but what I did was a sexually entitled act of fornication. I was investigated for raping my cousin, which never happened, with the police excusing me because I meant no harm by my sexual interaction with my little cousin.

The depraved and decadet, defiled adults who sexually abuse children will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them descend into torrents of Hell prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent!

Redefining child abuse: Why the Bible calls for expanding child abuse definitions

Many parents believe that the Bible has no concept of child abuse apart from obeying the law of the land. Most American parents support the present-day child abuse definitions under state and federal law. However, God's Law is above the law of the land. The Bible has its own definition of child abuse - whatever the child victim perceives as abuse.

The Greek root word denoting parental entitlement is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and is defined as, officially speaking, wanting things from children, to the point of imposition. Unofficially speaking, parental entitlement consists of a parent being sorely disappointed when they don't get the well-behaved child that they feel that they deserve. Parents are deserving of absolutely nothing in relation to children just for existing. Even any parent anger directed towards a child is parental entitlement, and was seen as entitlement in the Early Church. Whenever this sense of entitlement in parents then was perceived by a child as offensive or damaging, it was deemed child abuse. See also Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers here to offenses or damages, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. Child abuse in the Bible, as a legal concept, consists of entitlement in parents, leading to offense in children. The key to not abusing your child is to avoid offense in children. Avoiding offense in children is the same as avoiding offense in other adults. Just like hurt feelings are inevitable in relations between adults, hurt feelings are also inevitable in children when dealing with them. Thus, in order to avoid offense in children, you need to be willing to give a meaningful apology to your child for hurting their feelings. Usually, all that is necessary is a reassurance of good intent coming from parents, in the form of an informal apology, whenever you hurt their feelings with limits not set out of anger, such as "I'm sorry, but I had to set X limit for Y reasons". However, if you ever lose your cool with your child as a parent, including while setting limits, you definitely need to give a formal apology whenever you hurt your child's feelings with your anger, such as "I apologize for losing my temper with you", and then commit never to lose your cool with your child ever again, as any parent anger directed towards a child alone is entitlement, and was seen as entitlement in the Early Church. This commandment cross-references the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments, with the Apostle Paul here convicting a group of Greek Christian parents who brought into the church their pagan custom of patrias potestas, which is a Latin phrase roughly translating to "power to the parent", namely the power to impose punitive sanctions on children, such as spanking or other forms of punishment of children. However, this commandment was ultimately received by the parish at Colossae as prohibiting all offenses as perceived by a child, at minimum. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punitive parenting in his secular writings. Attachment parenting was banned under Roman law, but the Early Christians did it anyway, obeying God over men.

The Greek root word translated "they be discouraged" is αθυμέω (Latin: athumeo) and refers here to long-term damages, namely childhood trauma. The ancients had a basic understanding of childhood trauma. Whenever a child grew up to be atheist, it was seen as a shame on the parents, not the child. An atheist in the Early Church was seen as an abused child, not a "lost soul" to "win over".

The ancients in the Bible had their own understanding of child sexual abuse. The Greek root word translated "fornication" in the New Testament is πορνεία (Latin: porneia) and refers here to any sexual relations outside of the context of a Christian marriage between one adult man and one adult woman, with this marriage being equal in terms of the age of the participants. A groom was only allowed a bride his age or up to 4 years older than him. Intergenerational marriages were banned in the Early Church, as was any sexual advances towards a child at minimum. The most common form of child sexual abuse was father-child incest, with daughters being the usual target. Most fathers in the Early Church masturbated righteously to thoughts of his child that he was attracted to. Child sexual abuse was rare in the biblical context, meaning it was next to non-existent. Sexual abuse then did not exist on the gaslighting level, but existed at a level where a child could easily self-report their sexually abusive parents to the church authorities. Whenever a child was sexually abused by parents or other adults, it was seen as a huge moral  outrage.

Child abuse in the Early Church was prosecuted by way of internal investigation. This investigation usually started with a child confiding in a clergyperson about their home life. From there, the child's parents were summoned to testify before a council of 3 church elders that would decide the fate of the parents. If the child's parents defended themselves at all, as opposed to answering to the court directly, they were excommunicated from the Early Christian Churches of God. Contrary to popular belief, the Early Christians were not well-integrated into Rome, and instead lived in enclaves in big cities, shunning the outside Greco-Roman world. 

The Bible is an anti-spanking document. All 88 books of the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation - were written by anti-spanking Jews, with no Jew worth mentioning ever condoning the punitive treatment of  a child. All of the biblical writers also wrote parenting manuals that advocated attachment parenting. Even King Solomon wrote an attachment parenting manual, with the rod of correction in the book of Proverbs referring to the 40 minus 1 lashes. It just so happens that these parenting manuals were not translated into English until the 1960s. Before then, only the Jews knew what those attachment parenting manuals said. 

The Bible is America's book. America is a Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian values. We as a society glean from the Bible and its context as to how to live and treat each other with respect. Even our legal codes under the English common law are based off of biblical teaching. However, the "reasonable chastisement" defense is based off of dated biblical teaching. It is about time we abolish the "reasonable chastisement" defense, and expand child abuse definitions to include anything that the child perceives as abuse.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be cast forever into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torrents, suffering God's Wrath day and night forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Hebrews 12:5-6: Why this passage is not a pro-spanking passage

Many parents defend spanking as a so-called "right". Most American parents justify their choice to spank a child using the Bible as an excuse. Most American parents cite 5 passages in Proverbs and 1 passage in Hebrews to excuse their abusive treatment of children. However, the core of the pro-spanking argument rests of Hebrews 12:5-6. This passage in Hebrews does not even refer to any spanking coming from earthly parenting/ Heb. 12:5-6 refers chiefly to trials and tribulations sent by God the way of the believer.

God's Word on trials and tribulations is spelled out in Hebrews 12:5-6 KJV:

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

When understood correctly, this passage is comforting to me. The Greek root word translated "scourgeth" is μαστιγόω (Latin: mastigoó) and can have a figurative meaning to it, as is the case here. This sort of metaphor is known as rod language. If you were a Christian in the Early Church, and you had a long day at work, you instead said "God whipped me hard today". God does literally spank his children. However. God does punish His children, like only He can, sending trials and tribulations the way of His children that He loves the most. However, God only punishes His children when it does not harm them, whereas earthly parents only punish their children when it does, in fact, harm them. This passage was intended as comfort for the Hebrew Christians in their persecution from Rome.

The teaching of "biblical spanking" is a man-made teaching. God does not want His Parenting methods to be copied by earthly parents, as they could get it wrong. However, the Bible does weigh in on the spanking issue, and then some. See Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers here to offenses or damages, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. It is one thing to stop spanking your children. However, it is not enough to stop spanking your children, or even stop punishing children altogether for that matter. You need to avoid offense in children. Avoiding offense in children is the same as avoiding offense in other adults. Just as hurt feelings are inevitable in relations between adults, hurt feelings are also inevitable in children when dealing with them. Thus, in order to avoid offense in children, you need to be willing to give a meaningful apology whenever you hurt your child's feelings. Usually, all that is necessary is a reassurance of good intent coming from parents, in the form of an informal apology, in the case of hurt feelings due to limits not set out of anger, such as "I'm sorry, but I had to set X limits for Y reasons". However, if you ever lose your cool with your child as a parent, including while setting limits, you definitely need to give a formal apology for hurting your child's feelings with your anger, such as "I apologize for losing my temper with you", and then commit never to lose your cool with your child ever again, as any parent anger directed towards a child is entitlement, and was seen as entitlement in the Early Church. This commandment cross-references the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments, with the Apostle Paul here convicting a group of Greek Christian parents who brought into the church their pagan custom of patrias potestas, which is a Latin phrase roughly translated as "power to the parent", namely the power to impose punitive sanctions on children, such as spanking or other forms of punishment of children. However, this commandment was ultimately received in the parish at Ephesus as prohibiting any offenses as perceived by a child, at minimum. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punitive parenting in his secular writings. Attachment parenting was banned under Roman law, but the Early Christians did it anyway, obeying God over men.

The staple punishment in the broader Greco-Roman world was spanking to the bate bottom with an open hand. Paul would have none of it in the churches that he oversaw, convicting pro-spanking parents of offending their child. The Early Christians, contrary to popular belief, were not well-integrated into Greco-Roman society. The Christians then were ghettoized into enclaves in big cities throughout the Greco-Roman world. The Early Christians in the 1st Century even had their own courts that led internal church investigations into child abuse. 

Anger is a driving force in most parents today. However. the Early Christians opposed any anger in parenting. Instead, parenting then was guided by worry or concern, with anger pretty much only existing in the parent when parents acted in protective mode. Anger at children was seen among the Early Christians as akin to a viper lashing out at its prey - maybe the child hot some warning, but that's about it.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be cast forever into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath day and night forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!