A father's guide to attachment parenting (pro-social formal/informal, pro-social ragdoll, pro-social fantasy)

In this blog, I discuss the obligations of mothers a lot. Mothers, in the biblical tense, are the primary caregivers of children, meaning they provide the most for children. Fathers are to default to the mother in everything regarding the upbringing of children. However, fathers also play a crucial role in raising children, especially in terms of encouraging a religious education. Fathers are to be encouraging figures in a child's life, especially an older child's life, in a selfless way.

Fathers should also have a bond with their child, albeit a distant one. Fathers, in the early years of their child's life, should keep their distance and stand watch, providing an extra layer of protection for children, backing up the mother's primary protection of the child. However, in the later years of childhood, when the child is starting to prove their independence, the father should be right there to encourage feats of independence in children, challenging boys especially, but also girls, to prove their independence to parents, and if they cannot prove it, always offer a way out.

There is no other way out of bonding with your children as a father. You need to become a pedophile, but the abstinent type. Pedophile recovery is fantasizing about children, usually starting with your own, in order to become aware of the pedophilic side of your sexuality. All adults are capable of sexual fantasy of children, and usually, the first pick when offered a fantasy is their own child of the opposite sex. Usually, attachment parenting like what is recommended in the Bible causes sexual contentions between child and father. The safe way to deal with sexual thoughts about your child is to discharge such thoughts in masturbatory fantasy. It should improve your relationship with your child for the better, as those sexual desires are fulfilled completely, in a way that bonds you with your child from a distance - and that's all it will ever be. Father-child bonding is a distant one, with some close moments at the child's consent. Indulging in masturbatory fantasies about children brings fathers down to the level of their children, just like skin-on-skin contact does in the case of mothers. I myself am a pedophile, but the abstinent type, and I see children as my equal. The attraction is connotational in nature, not driven in nature. It is much like parent attraction, only I am not their parent.

The Greek root word translated "lust" and "inordinate affections" in the New Testament is επιθυμέω (Latin: epithumeo) and does not refer to ordinary sexual desire, including sexual desire towards children. It instead refers here to sexual desire to children to the point of taking the first steps to approac a child for sexual purposes. Church elders and deacons, including the Apostle Paul himself, recommended masturbatory fantasy about children to church members who reported sexual attractions to their children. Usually, these were Greek or Roman fathers, and usually they were anguished about their attractions to their children. The Apostle Paul and the rest of the church leadership told them to lighten up. Rome's laws on sexual purity were actually stricter that that of the Early Christians.

Mothers had direct, close contact and closeness with their children, with children naturally either ranging besides mothers, or else worn in swaddling clothing on her bosom or back. Fathers were not that close with their children in Ancient Israel. Fathers, by default, were on formal terms with their children, meaning they could not speak to their children except to distantly encourage their children in independent feats. Children could be close with their fathers, but only on sporadic terms, when the child specifically gave consent to spend time with their father. Even then, the interaction could be vetoed by the mother. Even the ancients hated child sexual abuse, as sexual relations were seen as something adult in nature. Fathers could engage in casual conversation and interaction with their children upon the child allowing the father to "break the ice" and drop all formalities in the interaction, which was usually then playful in nature.

Usually, fathers in biblical times were like human ragdolls around their children, being dragged hear and there about, wherever the child wanted to go, playing at the level of children whatever they wanted to play. Fathers in biblical times lacked parent anger. When fathers showed anger towards their children, it was seen as a shock and affront to all society, with the father being seen by biblical society as a viper and a monster. Any parental entitlement was prohibited as covetous sin in biblical times, with such entitlement specifically prohibited in the Bible in offense format. 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 to damages or offenses, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by the child in an exchange, including, but not limited to, the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by the child, coming from entitlement. This commandment was intended by the Apostle Paul, and understood in its original context, as a moral statute prohibiting all punitive parenting, including any punishment or controlling demeanor towards children. In the Old Testament, punitive parents were put to death by way of bloodletting, after punishing their children too many times, and receiving many warnings that their parenting habits were in violation of the Law. Parents who punished their children were charged with kidnapping, with "kidnapping" being defined as the slightest of damage or offense stemming from hostage-taking - child punishment was seen as holding a child hostage merely for things they did wrong. Paul was lifting up the Law to a group of Greek Christian parents who brought their pagan customs of spanking and punishing children into the church. The Apostle Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking. He was motivated to give these commands as a means of advocating for children in Greek and Roman families who spanked their daughters to purify them, and whipped their sons to discipline them. There was no such custom among the Early Christians or the Jewish culture preceding the Early Church. Paul warned that punishing a child was symbolically and traditionally a capital offense in the secular documents given alongside the Epistle to the Colossians. 

Mothers will always be the experts on children, as women are wired to be in the role of caring for children, straight to the body shape. In the Early Church, mothers were seen as experts on their children, and fathers defaulted to the mother of their child in how children should be raised. Fathers instead stood by, and stood guard with their rod and staff, protecting his wife and children, also bringing home the bread. The rod and staff was for beating intruders, not the wife or the children. The main roles of fathers are protection and encouragement. The rest should be left to the mother of the children. Provocations to anger, meaning any perceived offense whatsoever by the child, towards a child, is a mortal sin and is listed as extortioners in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Any anger at a child was seen as covetous sin, with parents in the Early Church expected to use righteous anxiety and worry to guide their parenting.

The depraved and entitled parents will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be forever cast 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 forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!