Many parents think that children need to hear the word "no" frequent and often. This is a common attitude amongst American parents. Most American parents say "no" a lot, including oftentimes out of anger. The fact of the matter is that defending your right to say "no" to a child is child abuse, and comes from entitlement.
The word "no" might offend a child, especially if stated forcefully. Defending the word "no" in and of itself comes from entitlement, and is child abuse if such entitlement offends the child. 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 offenses or damages, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, including, but not limited to, the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. It is not enough to stop spanking or punishing children - you need to avoid the slightest of offense perceived by a child. A good place to start is the word "no". Most parents use the word without thinking about it. Whenever you are angry with your child, you should never say "no". Whenever your child is offended by the word "no", parents should apologize to their children. This apology usually should come in the form of reassuring children of good intent. But, when parents are angry or frustrated with their children when saying the word "no", a full length apology is necessary, with statements such as "I apologize for losing my cool with you". 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 roughly translates to "power to the parent", with this including the power of the parent to impose sanctions on children, which came then in the form of spanking. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punishment of a child in his secular writings. Attachment parenting was banned under Roman law, but the Early Christians obeyed God over men, and were attachment parents to their children anyway.
The word "no" was not used frequently or often in the Early Church with children. Christian parents in the Early Church instead used the word "no" rarely, meaning almost never. Under customary law, children could only be told "no" if the child's petitioned requests were unsafe, unworkable, and/or immoral. Whenever parents said "no", they apologized by reassuring children of their good intent. Even then, most parents avoided the chaos altogether by finding nicer-sounding ways to decline a request, such as "that can't happen", "that isn't possible", or "that isn't possible".
A firm "no" was reserved for if a child committed a purity offense such as fornication. In the context of attachment parenting, children form sexual attachments to their parents, meaning prepubescent children are usually sexually attracted to their parents, usually the parent of the opposite sex. When children freshened up their parents, children were given a firm "no", then redirecting the child to righteous masturbation without pornography. Whenever children even accessed pornography, the lascivious depictions were collected by the parents and trashed, with children having to repent for their sin when baptized as an adult. Children who abused alcohol or drugs were also told a firm "no". No punishment was allowed in the case of a child committing a purity offense, but parents were allowed to give a firm "no" in a way that got their children's attention.
The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger through punutive 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.