What is pedophilia? What is pedophile hysteria?

Many people hate pedophiles. This is a common hatred in American society. However, more and more people are getting on the side of pedophiles, to varying degrees. Many people support abolishing the sex offender registry. Many people, usually in the trauma-informed arena, are coming to understand pedophilia as a very real mental illness, starting with the founding of the Virtuous Pedophiles forum in 2012. Most of the core supporters of pedophiles, however, still blame the children's rights community for not accepting pedophiles. There is a slot in this community for as many pedophiles as it can support, as long as the pedophiles don't cause too much trouble. What is pedophilia? Once you understand what the disorder is, you won't hate them at all. But, there is a prejudicial hysteria, and that hysteria needs to be tamped down at all costs. 

What is pedophilia? Most people think a pedophile is a narcissist, and is something someone hides. This is false. Pedophilia is a form of immature autism, where the age-oriented sexual development of the pedophile corresponds with their arrested emotional maturity. Most pedophiles also have moderate-severe autism, and their special interests usually correspond with their sexual interest in children. It is a low-level sexuality, just as autistic sexuality usually is. Children's rights is a common interest for a pedophile like me. Most pedophiles have a rule-oriented form of autism known as the "rule boy" profile. A "rule boy" pedophile believes that children are a special class, and thus the rules don't apply to children. It is the view of the pedophile that a child can do no wrong. A pedophile is someone with autism who only wants frends with children, and adults their age or older are "chopped liver". Children are a small part of life to most people, but not to a pedophile. Autism is a specializing disorder, where individuals with autism specialize in a certain topic, and focus on that topic heavily. When that topic of speciality is children, particularly in a legalistic, adversarial way, think pedophile. Usually, this adversarial attitude is akin to that of a defense attorney, but in this case the defense attorney wants to get the child out of trouble. A common behavior in pedophilic children is guarding younger siblings or younger family members when they are being reprimanded, meaning standing in the way of the parent scolding the child. To the pedophile, scolding the child is unfair and unjust.

Where did the prejudicial hysteria against pedophiles come from? It is a myth that the children's rights community created a hysteria. The true source of pedophile hysteria dates back to the Roman Catholic Church. Before Constantine, the Early Church welcomed pedophiles as long as they remained non-offending, with pedophiles usually being the men that were single and celibate, yet very kind and charitable to children. The Apostle Paul is an example of a biblical pedophile. The Apostle Paul was a strongman, but in first-to-last context, meaning he was a strongman for the little guy, including children. A pedophile was seen then as a strongman for children, like a defense attorney, and when the church elders voted to split up a family - which they could do - the pedophiles in the church cared for the children, asking nothing in return from children. In other ancient cultures, predatory pedophiles were allowed, but God chose Israel, a country that only allowed non-offending pedophiles. After Constantine, the Christian teaching on pedophilia was altered to suit the need of Emperor Constanting to control the Holy Roman Empire, meaning all pedophilia was sin since it couldn't be acted upon. One Bible verse cited by the Roman Catholic Church to prohibit all masturbation, and one that has been used against pedophiles in this capacity is Matthew 5:27-28 KJV:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 

The Greek root word translated "lust" is επιθυμέω (Latin: epithumeo) and refers not to ordinary sexual desire, but to sexual entitlement, which is defined as, officially speaking, sexual want, to the point of sexually motivated approach. Masturbation was a mandate for pedophiles in the Bible, in order to re-channel sexual desire away from having sex with actual children. Child sexual abuse was rare next to non-existent in biblical times, and only occurred in the most sexually repressed of environments.

However, the Roman Catholic Church chose to spread false religious doctrine that masturbation and sexual fantasy was sin, and that because of this, no pedophile would ever make it into Heaven. From there, that teaching was absorbed into all of the seceding churches during all three reformations. That is the reason why most Christians believe that a pedophile cannot be saved - because we were first told that masturbation alone was a hamper on our salvation, when it is not.

This same sexual repression of sexual thought about children ultimately led to the sexual abuse epidemic that we have today. Most fathers in particular are sexually attracted to their daughters, whether they are pedophiles or not. Decent fathers, by today's standards, distance themselves from their daughters. Sexual abuse happens when that sexual repression leads to the sexual desires come out sideways onto the child, usually in a predatory manner that treats the child more like food than a human being. If those fathers simply masturbated when they got sexual thoughts about their child, they wouldn't be sexually abusing them.

Pedophile hysteria is a form of mental health stigma of the admit variety. Pedophilia became associated with child sexual abuse because the religious stigma to labeling yourself a pedophile was so great in the 1970s that only avowed abusers used the label, and used it falsely. The true pedophiles remained hidden, and that was because their caregivers probably hid their disorder from sight. Today, the bulk of pedophile haters are the sexual abusers of children themselves, usually by blaming an easy target for what they are actually doing. Most sexual abusers of children are parents, or else trusted adults extended by the parents, or both. Any time you meet someone who calls everyone around them "the pedophile", think sexual abuse, because that is what they are doing on the other side of that facade, and seeing it in everyone else through foggy glasses.

Today, there is more for pedophiles than there ever was since the formation of this country. All a pedophile needs is someone to talk to, in normal language. I myself am a well-adjusted pedophile currently, meaning I am happy with life with what little I have, and I am grateful that I have people to talk to. I have a mother and a therapist, and other people that I could talk to if I ever needed to. I used to be an obvious abuser by nature, but I got better just by talking to someone about my attractions, and I talked to my therapist, my doctor, and my mother in order to sort things out in my head. At this point, all I want from children is to be around them. That wasn't the case before.

The depraved and decadent, defiled sexual abusers of children who project onto pedophiles will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them descend into torrents of Hell-fire! Repent!

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. day

As a policy, I do not discuss racial topics directly on my platform, to avoid the appearance of a racist. But, Dr. King's legacy transcends race. Children need a Dr. King of their own to afford them their civil rights. 

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. day. Many people think of children's rights as a leftist human rights worldview. The fact of the matter is that children deserve not only human rights, but civil rights. My future context view as a child advocate involves eliminating the voting age, meaning deleting it from our Constitution.

I do not have an agenda as an advocate, but instead ideals. My ideal is for children to have the same political rights that an adult has. 

Dr. King was pro-child himself, meaning he opposed spanking and corporal punishment entirely. Dr. King was not always stoic and serious, but was the laid back type of guy that you might find shooting pool on a Friday or Saturday night. He didn't think within the box, but thought for himself, as a critical thinker. He was not a liberal either, but was a Christian conservative and Southern Baptist, and stressed individual responsibility with his constituents. He was a lot like I am now on the children's rights issue - I see something wrong, and want to do something about it. 

Also, just like Dr. King did, I do not want to be well-known. I want my work to be well-known, meaning I want to one day walk down the street, knowing that in the houses I pass, children are safe and empowered - and that *I* was part of the solution, not part of the problem.

To commemorate Dr. King's legacy, I will continue to oppose all forms of child punishment, as is something Dr. King would agree with. Children are the most oppressed of minorities, meaning society sees them as mere slaves or chattel to their parents. Children are the only group of people without political rights of any kind. Here in Pennsylvania, felons can vote, but children cannot vote. 

What is getting in the way? Punitive parenting, including all forms of corporal punishment. If we could just have corporal punishment, as well as other forms of punishment, criminalized, then children would be able to vote, because nobody would be stopping them from making that solemn and private choice. Voting is for everyone, especially since some children work, and thus are taxed without representation. The government should not have the right to tell people who can and cannot vote. The government should just issue the ballot box. Who gets to use that ballot box? That is for the child to decide, when he/she is individually ready. Usually, a child is ready to vote when they care about the issues, meaning when they start to inform themselves about the issues.

The history of corporal punishment (and why it didn't start with Solomon)

Many parents think spanking started in biblical times, with King Solomon. King Solomon surely was not in favor of striking a child, and I don't doubt that fact one bit. Most Christians do not know the history of spanking children, or else they would not be doing it.

The rod of correction was not applied to minor children, but only adult children, in the form of 40 minus 1 lashes within the confines of a courtroom. Solomon, in the book of Proverbs, was reiterating the law of the time. Under Jewish law, striking another Jew was unlawful outside of a courtroom, and unlawful, period, for children.

Where did spanking come from. In 1st Century Christian church communities, the Greeks were slowly becoming Christianized, but held onto some of their pagan customs, with one of them being spanking children. Children in Greco-Roman culture were spanked in order to purify them of uncleanliness as a ritual. The Early Church did its best to ward off the pagan ritual and ban it, but quite a few Greek Christians and Roman Christians as well held onto the ritual, and swore by it as the way to keep a child in line.

In the year 312, Roman Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, and some years later, he converted Rome to Christianity, forming the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible was assembled by the Council of Nicaea, and was translated to Latin, but in a misleading way that reworded certain words in the parenting passages in a more authoritarian way. An example is Colossians 3:20 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

The word "obey" is incorrect as a translation. The proper Greek root word is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to secure rest in the love of parents, with love being submission from above in terms of providing for the child's needs. 

Why the change in language? Dictators want hierarchy in any given authoritarian society, and the Holy Roman Empire was a dictatorship. Bans on spanking erase hierarchy, and equalize populations - something Constantine didn't want, and neither did his companions.

I am anti-Catholic for this reason. The Roman Catholic Church lied to us all about what the Bible says about spanking, and hid the context. This, again, was to control the masses, whereas the reformation and radical reformation were both about being able to read the Bible for yourself, and then question church hierarchy. It is about time that the Truth be known about spanking and the Bible.

"Better not pout, better not cry": Why I oppose Santa Claus

Many parents believe in Santa Claus for their children, meaning most children in the United States grow up with Santa Claus in their lives. Nor all of us Christians believe in Santa Claus, however. I myself am opposed, on religious grounds, to imparting a belief in Santa Claus onto children. I see it as idolatry, meaning I would know the origins. I don't lecture most people, but will if Santa is used to abuse children.

How would Santa be used to abuse children? Look no further than the phrase "better not pout, better not cry". It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: as this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to provocations to anger against children, meaning all offenses against children, as defined as the slightest of personal offense perceived by the child. This was intended to include any punishment, including corporal punishment or even the threat of punishment. The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin; hupakouo) and refers to trust in parents, namely the vulnerable trust borne out of maternal warmth and sustenance. In my Christian culture, parents give gifts to children, not a gift giver as an intercessor. 

Santa Claus was intended as an intercessor to parents during Victorian times, who were too high and pious for their own children. Some versions of Santa Claus in Europe depict Santa handing parents a whip to beat the children with, even as a dated tradition in European countries that have banned spanking. Krampus, in the middle ages, was said to have went around the town whipping children who did bad things.

Punishment of children is not part of the Christian tradition at all, even if many claim it to be. Santa Claus is way too often used as a weapon to enforce "good behavior" on children, placing children in fear of punishment. Anything fear-based in parenting in terms of imposing fear of children is a provocation to anger. Parents should give gifts directly, and the terms should be unconditional Christian love, not good behavior. Christian love is when parents are struck with reverent terror and fear, leading to conviction to surrender to the every need of a child.

Santa Claus is a form of child oppression masked as child care. Santa Claus has a history of being used to oppress children by replacing parents with a man with a red suit. Who is this man incarnate of? None other than the Norse god Odin, or Woten as spelled under the Germanic spelling. If you are Roman Catholic, you can regard him as instead St. Nicholas, the giving saint, but I am not Roman Catholic, but instead non-denominational Anabaptist. The Greek root word denoting idolatry is ειδολολτρης (Latin: eidololatres) and refers to any worshipping of idols other than God Himself, who was once falsely regarded as an idol Himself before declaring in the First Commandment that "no false gods before me". See 1 Corithians 6:9-10 KJV:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

So, I just quit supporting Santa Claus, and won't teach my children to worship a pagan idol. If they beg for Santa Claus, THAT will be my one Christian reason, to avoid provocation to anger. I'll inform them of how I feel first, but then that's it. But, it would be for THEM, not me. So long, Santa Claus. I got a Nativity scene instead...

The Roman Catholic Church: Where spanking came from

Many parents and adults believe that spanking is "time-honored" and use that as an excuse for their abuse within the law. The fact of the matter is that spanking is a fairly new phenomenon towards children in human history. Spanking children is an idolatrous, Catholic teaching that Protestants and Anabaptists have bought into.

It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

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

This refers to a specific historical context involving pro-spanking encroachment and infiltration into God's Church. Fathers in the Colossian church would often whip their older sons, and spank their daughters. Children and wives are property of men in what was known then as patrias potestas.

The Early Christian churches of God, as a religious entity, prohibited any punishment of children, deeming it kidnapping, which was a capital offense under the Law that Christ pardoned. It was unthinkable for a Hebrew-Christian parent to strike their child.

It says in Revelation 17:1-2

And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked to me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew you unto thee the great whore that sitteth upon many waters. With whom the kings of the earth had committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth had been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 

"Sitteth upon many waters" has come true, meaning the pro-spanking domain set up by the Roman Catholic Church sits on many waters. The rest of the underlined simply accentuates the point of the first underlined statement - spanking spread far and wide from Rome. The Holy Roman Empire found that getting pagan parents to cease corporal punishment, so it was put on the back burner, then ignored, meaning the church came up with the spanking teaching to cater to pagan customs of beating and punishing children in Europe.

The Anglo-Saxons were horrible towards children, with child rape and whipping children being the norm. When Rome conquered England, the English common law system being created, which was a merger of Anglo-Saxon law and Roman law, with Christian influence that lifted up most of the basic legal tenets of the Bible. Thus, much of the Anglo-Saxon child battering customs were enshrined in a legal system that was then transplanted onto the New World.

However, the United States was not founded on Anglo-Saxon values, but Judeo-Christian values regardless of race or ethnicity. America consists of many groups that must work together, but we must have common ground first, hence the need to promote Judeo-Christian values. Spanking children is not Judeo-Christian values, but Anglo-Saxon values coming from a Roman pulpit. Ultimately, the neglect of children by the Roman Catholic Church caused the pagan idolatry of spanking children to spread.

I am a conservative Christian, and that's how I see parents spanking their children - pure witchcraft. It's something the Roman Catholic Church should have stopped from the get-go, like they should. My Judeo-Christian values call for not provoking children to anger with punishment or controlling attitudes towards children, and so I oppose it wherever it is, and it should not exist anywhere, and if you defend it as a "right", YOU should not exist anywhere - except maybe in a prison cell. Let them BURN in eternal torment that is the lake of fire and burning sulfur! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

The history of punitive parenting

Many people think corporal punishment and punitive parenting are time-honored traditions, and have been around since time immemorial. Punitive parenting is a rather new and dark development in human history, with the majority of the world's children, throughout history, raised in attachment parenting homes.

Attachment parenting in the Levantine cultures were attachment-based in natures, for good in Israel and for bad in Canaan. Canaanite parents "connected" with their children with sex before the Ten Commandments were handed to the Israelite Levantine society. Israelite society was a purity and honor society, whereas the Canaanites engaged in more permissive, sexually indulgent attachment parenting. The Bible clearly lifts up the Law in terms of attachment parenting, which forbade "healthy" sexual interventions, associating "healthy pedophilia" with Caananite impurity. The Jewish rebellion was to assert among the Levantine land the authority of Monotheism. From there, child sacrifice and child sexual abuse were banned by the Law.

Thousands of years later, in the New Testament, Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross by submitting to a Roman execution. He endured both aspects of the Law in terms of enforcement, meaning capital punishment and the corporal punishment of 40 minus 1 lashes with the cat o' nine tails, with him then being nailed to the cross alive - yet He Rose from His tomb on the Third Day, with no enemy denying the events, and all this abolished all parental corporal punishment throughout the world, and this was cemented by the Apostle Paul's delivery of the commandment not to provoke a child to anger in Col. 3:21 and Eph. 6:4, with the Bible as a whole commanding attachment parenting, being a binding legal document uplifting child protection Law onto the broader, gentile world that is otherwise not Jewish in terms of cultural orientation. The Messiah was to self-sacrifice in order to catapult Judeo-Christian values. 

Any corporal punishment was seen by the Early Christians as idolatry, as it came from an idolatrous practice of punishing young boys with the cat o' nine tails and spanking young girls for "unchaste" behavior. These were no doubt pagan traditions to 1st Century Christians.

In the year 325 AD, Rome converted to Christianity. Beforehand, in the year AD 90, Rome ransacked Judea and hid the evidence that the Bible prohibited corporal punishment, leaving that knowledge among the Jews and their literature. From there, Roman law, which was pro-spanking in letter and practice, affected the English common law on corporal punishment, whereas the case R. v. Hopley used the case of the manslaughter of a student to legally justify the corporal punishment of children.

Corporal punishment is so common today as opposed to ancient times, including in the Early Church where it is banned. That is why I am a Calvinistic, anti-Catholic, Anabaptist Christian who believes in limited atonement. So many parents hate their children and punish them. Most of the world punishes children, and that is a regression of children's status, not a progression of status. The whole world is a menace to children, and is deserving of DEATH and DESTRUCTION for its vile and damned crimes against children. 

Punitive parenting is banned by the Sacrificial Example of Jesus Christ, as codified in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to closeness to parents leading to respect, with children being themselves in relation to parents, telling them anything and everything under the sun, making demands to parents, and parents supplying the demands, with children owing absolutely nothing to parents, but nonetheless listening and cooperating with parents out of thanksgiving and gratitude for the kindness, charity, and generosity of parents. This closeness came in the form of attachment parenting in ancient Judeo-Christian culture, with children as old as age 3 being treated as infants behaviorally, with children being breastfed up until that age. Children co-slept next to mothers until adulthood, with mothers and daughters being inseparable. The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to "stirring up" upset and resentment in children, referencing the Jewish adage of "stirring the pot" in regards to a child's emotional welfare, legislating and codifying a biblical ban on spanking and corporal punishment.

The good old days. Before the corporal punishment of children invaded the earth. Let the depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the lake of fire, which is the second death! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! Christ never intended for spanking to be this widely legal, when the Law He promoted prohibited corporal punishment of children. Christ ended all legal punishment apart from pro-social alienation, even if it goes on without His permission. God will have a say in the end, for God is good and just. 

Mutual submission: Why parent and child are to respect each other

Many people think of mutual submission as between spouses in Christian teaching. However, all relationships with your neighbor are based on the concept of mutual submission. The Pauline epistles give commandments for specific and important instances of mutual submission. One is male headship over wives, and another is parental leadership of children, both reversed by Rome. 

It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to secure, vulnerable rest and trust in the love and grace of parents, coming from sacrifice for children, in the spirit that Christ sacrificed for His children; taking up the cross for children, like Christ took up the cross for His children; martyring oneself in everything regarding parenting, with children securely resting in the sacrifice of parents, showing gratitude and thanksgiving by emulating their Christian example. This Greek root word ultimately uplifts the traditional Judeo-Christian parenting context of the Bible, which was attachment-based in nature. Children went in the nude throughout childhood, throughout the biblical context, with children deemed vulnerable while in that state, swaddled and snuggled up next to their mother's bosom, with children up until age 3 breastfed and treated behaviorally as infants. The most common form of secure attachment in the Bible is policing attachment, meaning children asking, demanding, and sometimes even ordering parents around regarding their needs, at least in so many tears, with parents surrendering to their child's wishes on everything but the demands that clearly could not be fulfilled due to safety or other factors. Basically, it involves a parent that does everything for their child, request after request after request, and even when tired, serves the needs/wants of their child, usually as attachment needs, giving up the fight completely and allowing their child to be the boss of their needs. A good Christian parent should only say "no" for safety's sake in most cases, and whenever a child is declined an item, the parent must reassure the child and validate their upset at the same time. Parents in the biblical context were convicted of their child's needs, meaning struck with reverent terror for the child's every need, revering the child's vulnerability, and the child being won over to parents by such reverence. 

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and literally translates to "stirring up" upset and resentment in children, referencing the Jewish idiom of "stirring the pot" regarding your child's emotions. This was a direct command from God delivered by the Apostle Paul that opposed spanking and corporal punishment, as well as any punishment committed against a child. Punishing a child in particular was kidnapping under Jewish law, as it was a form of hostage taking in the reverse towards a child, and since it was a capital offense before Christ, it was a collective offense. Striking a child out of punishment was a serious crime under Judeo-Christian statutes then. Corporal punishment did exist in biblical times, but only in judicial format, as a final warning before execution. Only adults could be whipped by their elders, with children simply seen as learning right from wrong, and not culpable for their actions until they were fully literate concerning the Law. In order to be punished by the Law, you must know what it says and what it means, and individuals under a certain age are not responsible for their actions. If a child were to have murdered someone, the parents would have been put to death, not the child. Punishment outside of the law, as well as any anger outside of the law, was seen as perjury and entitlement. The death and Resurrection of Christ banned all corporal punishment everywhere in Christendom, with moral disassociation, both individual and collective, being the only negative consequence handed out by churches then. The Apostle Paul handed out parenting manuals instructing parents in the church ordinance that supports attachment parenting. Attachment parenting in 1st Century Christian homes was very much based on exemplary teaching, meaning being emulating Christ in His Living Example, especially how He sacrificed for His own children. Parents are called to sacrifice like that for their own children, with the focus being on Christ's sacrifice, putting the needs of children and other needy people in your life before you, which is the key of the Christian example given by Jesus of Nazareth. Warnings were also a rare part of Christian parenting then, when children were getting too rambunctious and could hurt themselves. The warnings were modeled after the graceful nature of Christ's commands. 

Rome reversed the roles. Children are an extension of God in the family home, and a vulnerable one (Matt. 25:31-46), with parents being a giving extension of Christ, being a charitable example that gives to their children at the child's demand and orders. The Roman Catholic Church, upon its founding, reversed many mutual submission roles. We conservatives have reversed back what was reversed formerly by the Roman Catholic Church, meaning husbands are to provide for their wife, and wives rest in the providence of husbands, whereas before then, husbands were authority figures to police their wives, "like children" as some feminists would say. Now, the last battle is children's rights, meaning parents aren't authority figures either, but simply hold a leadership position, and that usually leads to parents being led to the child's needs, and shown a few interesting sights along the way. Parents are to provide selflessly like Christ, and children are to rest securely in that providence from parents, and if children are rebelling all of the time, you aren't listening to them, so you don't deserve to be listened to by your child.

The depraved and entitled parents will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death, which is Satan's final resting place! Let them descend into everlasting Hell-fire, with God angry at the parent evildoers who harm and abuse children! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

USA Spanking ban: Why it is already banned under natural law

Many parents and adults support the punishment of children. Most of these parents cite the Bible and natural law to cite their "right" to punish their child. The natural law of this country is evolving, and does not allow for the corporal punishment of children.

America is a Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian values, and entitlement is not a family value, even in parents/adults. It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to secure, vulnerable rest and trust in the love and grace of parents, with children being able to be themselves and tell parents anything, and not fear punishment from said parents, owing absolutely nothing in return to parents, with parents giving without receiving. This word refers to and uplifts a specific historical context where children were in providing custody of their parents, meaning an attachment parenting setup to the level of nudity in terms of intimacy, meaning children in the biblical context were held close by Hebrew mothers, with both parents being safe people in different roles, with mother being there to snuggle with in a co-sleeping set up, and father to protect and instruct. Child nudity was allowed under biblical law, and that was to ease the process of skin-to-skin contact, which was used by Hebrew mothers to gain the trust of their child. The nudity of the situation is stated in vivid, pictorial form to show the closeness between parents and children in the biblical context. 

Where does spanking fall in? Nowhere. The Greek root word in vs. 21 translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and literally translates to "stirring up" anger and upset in children, referring to the Jewish idiom of "stirring the pot" with your child's emotional safety and welfare by being harsh and punitive with children. It refers to the specific moral offense of provocation of one's neighbor to anger, with children being seen as your neighbor under the Law. This historically included corporal punishment, which was banned, with punishing your child being stated as prohibited under the Law, with alternatives such as forming a bond through co-sleeping and skin-to-skin contact being recommended to form the bond needed for children to cooperate with parental instructions later, channeling energy into the family home or otherwise towards the parents, with their energy and rambunctiousness being only shown to parents as safe people. The Greek root word "parent" is γονεύς (Latin: goneus) and refers to leadership, not authority, and usually the child leading the parent to their needs, and parents ultimately leading by providing for every need and attending every petition of redress.

America is a Christian nation, and God's Law is above the law of the land. Spanking a child is banned under Divine Codified Jurisprudence. Children have three natural rights alongside their fellow Americans. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness. "Equal protection under the laws" is what sums up children's rights in relation to children, especially in relation to freedom from assault and battery. Under the Law, there existed assault and battery laws, but the "reasonable chastisement" defense was part of Roman law, which saw wives and children as chattel, long after the conversion of Rome to Christ. The Roman Catholic Church then promulgated the faith by pandering to the pagan cultures of Europe, absorbing their pagan customs and rituals into the church. The church currently is improving on this issue, but Pope Francis is the head of the church, and I remember his view on spanking - he supports it.

Thing are improving for children. Here in Pennsylvania, physically punishing a child under age 1 was banned in 2014, as well as the physical abuse statutes for children aged 1-18 redefined as any mark left on the child's body, including a lasting red mark, whereas before, there needed to be a test by pushing the injury and gauging the cry of a child, in which case some children with autism don't cry at all ,so they weren't protected. The legal trend on physical abuse in Pennsylvania is easing towards a complete ban, and society will be ready by then. Just a few years ago, here in Berks County, I would regularly see verbal domestic altercations in stores between parents and children. Sometimes I see it these days, but not like I saw it just a few years ago, and that is how you look for change. That and children who are more street smart.

God chose Israel for how Israel treated children - the "least of these" who were the lowest in society. Christ catapulted the Law and its protections for children across the world. Christ's agenda is not done. This world is not intended for us, but as the Satan's playground. Parents will be enslaved and tethered to their children, just like in the days of old in ancient Israel and its churches, just like children are enslaved to parents and adults by false Catholic infiltration into God's Church that is idolatrous and pagan in nature, and endorses child abuse, with the Roman Catholic Church being historically the whore of Babylon (Rev. 17:1-18) that promoted child abuse such as spanking children throughout the world. Constantine did successfully get Christianity spread across the world, but at a price to children, meaning the promulgation is imperfect and tainted by the devil. The Bible uplifts the true Laws as the historical and legal context then, but namely the legal context, understood it. Anti-spanking values are thus American values. The European church has long discouraged corporal punishment of children, and changing church opinion was the first step of children's rights advocates and reformers in Sweden, Iceland, and other countries in Europe, by presenting the biblical case against spanking shrouded in mystery in the American church. I believe in religious reform, and am the first children's rights advocate to explicitly denounce anti-religious efforts and advocacy being conflated with the rights of children, which can be integrated into any culture or worldview pretty much.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger violate the natural laws of this country, and will surely be cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

What Proverbs 13:24 means to me (as a children's rights adult)

Many pro-spanking parents will cite the Bible as a reason to say that spanking a child is sin. Others here ignore texts such as Prov. 13:24. Proverbs 13:24 has nothing to do with raising a child, hence why I rarely bring it up. There is a whole historical context behind the verse that most Christian parents are missing.

It says in Proverbs 13:24 KJV:

He that spareth the rod hates his son: but he who loveth his son chasteneth him betimes.

"Son" here refers to an adult son over the age of majority, which was 13 now, with 18 being the modern-day equivalent. The rod here is referred to the Hebrew word שםח (Latin: shebet) referring literally to the rod of correction for younger men who got caught up in the legal system in ancient Israel, in a way that would make Israelite national news, meaning a once-in-a-lifetime event in any Israelite settlement. Most of the time, the rod in these verses could be interpreted and applied in layers, meaning the rod of correction referred symbolically to living on the edge, and then perishing because of entitled recklessness and foolishness. We aren't talking about a rowdy young child, but a rowdy young man that frequents prostitutes, orgies, alcohol, unclean meats, and such.

In order for an adult son to be whipped by his father, there had to be extensive due process, meaning there had to be warnings, and the warnings had to be then when the individual was caught in the act. Living on the edge, literally, meant you were going places, meaning headed for destruction by the Israelite state, meaning you were warned by your father and mother repeatedly that you would have to endure judicial corporal punishment, with the father being the court-appointed accessory. The legal system operated as a hitman, meaning the parents were desperate, in a way that had them stigmatized in that society as snowflakes, to the point where every single parent recanted the allegations against their stubborn and rebellious son, deeming him a prodigal son, praying for him and keeping him in his heart, something most parents did in the first place and said "if you need to kill your child due to their rebellion, you must have modeled that behavior to them".

The rod of correction was a legal menace, much like the image of a mugshot. When you see a mugshot, does it make you that less likely to commit a crime? It does for me. Very few sons got the rod of correction, and most did because they killed their neighbor or abused their children, the latter meaning punishing or falsely encouraging their the grandchildren of their parents, meaning grandparents then were authoritarian in a different way - they stepped in usually to stop abuse and put the sick puppy down for kidnapping or incest, by their order of investigation in the family, to purge the family of all uncleanness, sexual impurity, and hatred of children. No adult son got the tail end of a switch just for disobedience.

Children, meaning minor children that were not of age, were not punished, but were raised in an attached manner. Ancient Jewish culture was attachment parenting culture, in the form of mutual submission and mutual respect between parents and children. This culture is uplifted in the New Testament, meaning Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as this is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to providing custody, meaning children resting while their every need is provided for by parents, with parents supplying the every demand of children in terms of needs, including attachment needs, with children being able to say or do anything in relation to parents, not fearing any sort of punishment or reprisal from parents, owing absolutely nothing in return to parents, yet nonetheless showing gratitude and thanksgiving to non-abusive, non-violent parents by listening to their reassuring voice and taking up their example in terms of values. The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to "stirring up" anger or upset in children, in terms of "stirring the pot" in terms of negative and hurt emotions from children, referring to spanking and punishing children, which was a Hellenistic tradition which Paul was insisting had to die upon entry onto Church grounds. God used the Apostle Paul to officially, and explicitly, ban spanking throughout the world. Any commandment of God than can be applied today applies, as written to its original legal context, which is a Christian context here.

Attachment parenting was the norm in ancient Jewish culture, and Early Christian culture alike, with parents remaining close to their children, Mothers swaddled their infant children to their bosom until age 3, with breastfeeding allowed (or at least tolerated) everywhere in public. Skin-to-skin contact was also used to bond with children, with the bond to both parents lasting for a lifetime, meaning when children came home to parents, even the toughest of men, they regressed into a child-like state, meaning the culture was hospitable towards adult children - come on back home sometime, kick back your shoes, and maybe have something to drink. Adult children could always seek refuge with parents, and the door was always open. Usually, though, adult children were motivated to be independent as they ranged away from parents, experiencing the cushioning of attachment parenting enough to form the self-control and self-discipline to handle the real world.

The rod verses in Proverbs refer to judicial corporal punishment, not familial corporal punishment. Replace "rod of correction" with "Department of Corrections" and it means the same thing. You do the big boy crime, you do the big boy time.

The depraved and entitled parents will BURN! Let them descend forever into the abyss of Hell-fire, which is the lake of fire, meaning the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Assault and battery laws comparison: the Bible vs. English common law

Most parents believe in spanking, but do not understand where the laws that defend their abusive choice comes from. Physical battery is the legal statute in question, known as either harassment or disorderly conduct in its specific context (physical and verbal battery are both decriminalized in Pennsylvania). Usually, the law of the land is in sync with God's Law, but in the case of spanking here in Pennsylvania.

It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to providing custody, meaning rest in the providence of parents, meaning supplying the demands of children, with parents taking the brunt of the demands of their child, owing absolutely nothing in return to children, yet nonetheless showing gratitude by listening to the voice and example of parents, in a reassured state that gives thanksgiving for the charity and kindness of parents, and for parents making the choice not to punish a child. Providing custody is a form of custody where a child can expect to be provided for, with a parent being a selfless caregiver, deserving nothing in return from their child who is in the position of ward. Children did not need to give anything in return to parents, but could if they wanted to, and usually did if the parents were good parents. Love for a child was basically righteous enslavement, meaning it was seen as a selfless, thankless job that didn't pay a dime, yet you did it anyway because you loved your child. Child custody in the English common law is similar, except that in some states, namely in the Bible Belt, parents can get a legal order for their child to obey their parents, which has no basis in the Bible as applicable to today. There was one in the Old Testament, but it was dropped for gentle Christians, with Jewish-Christians merely seeing it as a compelling reason to obey parents as an adult, in a symbolic fashion. Gentile Christians are only to follow the Ten Commandments by default, or else all laws uplifted by the Greek lettering.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and literally refers to "stirring up" anger in children, meaning "stirring the pot" in terms of your child's emotions and upset, and literally literally refers to the offenses in the legal context of the Bible, which consisted of the torts and damages laid down by the Eighth Commandment. This includes assault and battery, with battery meaning the slightest of unwanted touch perceived by the child under the Law. The only difference is that there is no "reasonable chastisement" defense under the Law of Moses, as such is a Roman legal concept that was transported to the English common law, and thus to the United States, where we use the English common law as a basis for codified law.

The "reasonable chastisement" defense does not come from the Bible itself, but from a case in the High Court of England, R. vs. Hopley. This refers to the Eastbourne manslaughter, meaning where a student was beaten to death in the course of physical punishment. The High Court basically gave any former dependency of England, as well as all of the UK, the right to punish children physically. Keep in mind this regression in the status of children didn't happen until the 1800s, in which before then it would have been seen as Roman tradition, which many European countries held onto. This was due to the Roman Catholic Church appealing to the traditions of the European societies that they proselytized to, using "shamrock" gaslighting. Think the Roman Catholic Saint Patrick in Ireland explaining the trinity using shamrocks. This also meant allowing European cultures to keep some of their idolatrous, pagan traditions, and that included whipping or spanking disobedient children. Even today, every European country has their own unspoken tradition in terms of punishment, but with the tradition then stated as "no more", meaning "we don't allow that anymore here".

The Law of Moses never allowed it, and in the Old Testament, it was seen as an offense to the level of literal uncleanliness. In the Early Christian context, parents weren't literally unclean, but the Old Testament context was seen as punitive nostalgia that parents better not offend their child. Anything that was offensive to the person, including the child, could be perceived as an offense, meaning theft. Usually, this resulted in the divorce of the parents, and the children going with the non-abusive parent.

The United Kingdom is beholden to Anglo-Saxon values, where children were, in fact, treated harshly and disciplined with physical punishment. American culture has only one layer of values - Judeaeo-Christian values, meaning America's main law book in the Bible, with God's Law being above any secular laws here. But, the Bible does not speak of corporal punishment, in context, as an option, except as judicial corporal punishment that announced a condemnation to death. The rod of correction represented symbolically then living on the edge, meaning when you lived on the edge, and wore out your warnings as a young man, you were whipped, meaning it never happened because every single parent recanted - it was embarrassing, and showed that THEY were the abuser for raising a criminal. Then, criminality was thought to come from a harsh upbringing where zealotry was what was modeled.

America can change in this regard, once we as a country redeem our true values. We are perfecting our values each time we accept new information like the anti-spanking teachings in the Bible into the biblical teachings we traditionally go by as Americans.

The depraved and entitled parents will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them rot and burn in the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death prepared for the evil one and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

The history of corporal punishment (from Moses to today)

Many people link the biblical context to corporal punishment. This is a false association, as corporal punishment only came about after the Bible was written. It all started with one of the Ten Commandments, namely the Fifth in fact.

It says in Exodus 20:12 KJV:

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 

This refers to one simple fact - the Bible and Ten Commandments, together, are the one legal document that furthered the status of children, or at least was intended by God to. Before Moses, under Canaanite law, parents could kill disobedient children at will, and sacrificed disobedient children to the idol Molech. After Moses, parents had to go to court to even punish their children, and their children had to be of age, meaning the age of majority. A stubborn and rebellious son had to be guilty of all counts mentioned in Deut. 21:18-21, and be warned multiple times by multiple witnesses for each individual count, with "gluttony" in the Bible referring specifically to unlawful meats, which is specific to the Jewish religion and otherwise doesn't exist in the Christian faith.

In the children's rights tense, Christ's death and Resurrection was intended to promulgate the Hebraic concept of children's rights, meaning child-friendliness, as Christ was all for the little children and their rights (Matt. 19:14). Judaeo-Christian values were never intended to be in favor of any punishment towards children. Paul explicitly forbade fathers from using punishment as a form of child discipline in Eph. 6:4 and Col. 3:21. 

In the 3rd Century, Roman Emperor Constantine ordered the compilation of the Bible. This is where the Roman Catholic Church was honest, meaning books of apocrypha, meaning embellishments that plagiarized true authorship, were removed from the list of books, except one, Hebrews, which is a part of the Bible, yet only mentions corporal punishment in a figurative manner. Hebrews stays in the Bible due to its timeless value, usually in poetic format.

Where did the Roman Catholic Church get things wrong? When proselytizing to the pagan peoples of Europe, they left one teaching out because European men then were so in favor of controlling their families - the attachment parenting teaching. Attachment parenting was the norm in ancient Israel and adjoining churches, but that context was lost throughout time.

Nowadays, more and more biblical scholars, such as Samuel Martin and William Webb, are studying the Hebraic accounts of family life in ancient Israel. Was it harsh? Yes, but only in terms of environmental hazards. Spanking or punishing a child in any way was forbade under the Law, and was, in fact, considered kidnapping in many cases, which involved a death sentence of hanging and bloodletting of parents, and that showed both how that culture felt about spanking, and how God felt, meaning wanting to transport that legal system to the whole world, in spirit, with the Messiah being the Sacrificial Lamb so that children's rights could be spread, largely using secular researchers and professionals as tools of God for the good of children. God does have a hand in this children's rights movement. God will erase all corporal punishment from the land, angry at a world that misuses His Laws and Word to abuse children.

There will be change, and change is already happening. Most fundamentalist and charismatic churches do not have a policy that discriminates against attachment parents, but individual pastors may still preach against such parenting, and often do. This is an improvement, and many more mainline and progressive churches have made statements against the use of force in parenting. In response, many states have either anti-spanking bills archived in their state house, or are gradually reforming themselves by increasingly stringent definitions of physical abuse. In Pennsylvania, striking a child under age 1 is a criminal offense, meaning endangering the welfare of a child, regardless of injury. Such is a felony of the third degree, which carries with it a maximum prison term of 7 years. Laws are changing favorably nationwide, some places slower than others in terms of pace. Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Hawaii seem to be places where progress is accelerating. 

Let's wait and see. The status of children is improving. Let's keep it that way. America is a Christian nation, with all of our founders either being Christians or respecting Christian values, and thus God's Law is above the land. Spanking is banned. See Col. 3:21 for details. Spanking is already banned, as we are a nation that respects natural law first. Lift up the natural law, then the state bans it. 

Why corporal punishment is the norm - the history of it all

Many people blame corporal punishment on the Bible, saying the rise of Christendom was the rise of corporal punishment of children. Children in the Bible were well-treated, meaning deified by their fathers, and nurtured by their mothers, as extensions of God. So why does society still spank?

It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

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

This commandment is a common one in the Apostle Paul's writing. Epistles are similar to a district attorney saying "these individual parents know who they are, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law". Paul had a legal personality, which God used to preserve, for the time-being, the Jewish tradition of child-friendliness in the Christian church. Many fathers of Hellenistic descent brought with them a spanking and corporal punishment habit. A father who was found guilty of punishing his children was flamed out by the entire church community, in a calculated yet reckless collective act of disfellowship and shunning. This often started with the divorce of a wife, taking the children with her, with the other men in the church guarding her for her safety.

Rome, after a strange, Otherworldly incident involving Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire, Rome became Christian. This was an omen, in retrospect, to the demolition of child-friendliness in Christendom, and replacing it with reverent child hatred, meaning "if you don't hate children at least some of the time, and allow it, you are an abuser", when there is zero biblical evidence of any credibility for that. All corporal punishment, in practice, was meant for adults who committed a capital offense, meaning children cannot be deemed guilty, at all, for anything.

The pagan cultures of Europe were very harsh and brutal to children, meaning whippings and scare tactics. The German version of Santa Claus comes down from the hills and whips "naughty" children with a tree branch. The Roman Catholic Church preferred pandering to the pagan cultures they held under their umbrella, over forcibly converting them, and part of this pandering was antisocial "tradition", meaning allowing pagan cultures to practice their own parenting customs, which tended to be controlling and punitive in nature. It's called European folk traditions, and in modern anti-spanking Europe, those who cling to these traditions too loudly are seen as the offenders against children. 

The American church is infiltrated with Catholic idolatrous hatred of children, meaning that's where it all started - the advent of Roman Catholicism. Our founding Judaeo-Christian values prohibit any form of entitlement, including using violence to control a child. Most Americans don't know that anti-spanking laws already exist in the Bible. But, more individual Christians all over the theological spectrum are open to anti-spanking beliefs, with even conservative churches dropping statements commanding parents to spank. The Jehovah's Witnesses used to forbid gentle parenting, with an elder at the Kingdom Hall spanking a child. The Catholic church used to encourage parents to do similar things to children. Things are advancing in both conservative denominations.

Who is at fault for religious child abuse? I blame the parents themselves. They actually could have been the Christians they claimed to be while not punishing their children or even lifting a finger, but they chose to be like the hive, and not think for the selves. I am not one to hate whole churches, but individual parents in such churches. Who knows? An Adventist or Mennonite family might be gentle parents like I am? I hate the concept of church bashing, as I have more class than that as an advocate. Most parents in any given American church denomination spank (not so much in Europe these days), but I must presume innocence, and only call them out when they rear their heads. Religion is not abuse. Misuse of religion coupled with punishment is.

I have a legal trauma, in textual format. Section 509 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code is the most offensive law to my trauma. I don't want laws like this to even exist. When I feel uncomfortable about a parent punishing a child, I want to be able to call the police and have the parents ticketed and investigated for harassment or disorderly conduct, depending on whether the parents are in an apartment complex abusing their children or not. Spanking is a mainstay of the "reasonable chastisement" defense. The defense ultimately comes from the Roman legal concept of patrias potestas, and since these laws are conflated with pagan custom, they are idolatry when invoked by a parent, as Roman law has pagan origins, as does the English common law in areas of the law that can be linked to the Bible. Most can. This one can't. I don't even want any punishment or violence against children to exist, meaning erase it and wipe spanking off the face of the earth. It sickens me to know it is here. Any legal excuse threatens my trauma. Put a link to that defense in my inbox, and I'll be enraged. Otherwise, I find my way around triggers.

The Bible never was intended by God to endorse violence and entitlement against children. That comes from imposed extraterritorial law from the United Kingdom, meaning case law, namely that of the case of R v. Hopley (1860), where the High Court of England ruled in favor of corporal punishment for "every parent or guardian" in England and Wales. Before then, it was implied and the authorities looked the other way in the United States, as battery laws did not exist before then, with many legal disputes being able to be solved by a duel...The Bible doesn't allow for any of this, yet the Bible is often cited in defense of these horrendous laws that allow abusers to escape from justice through a legal loophole. 

God's Law is above the law of the land, and thus provocation to anger is an offense perceived by the child (see again Col. 3:21) in a court of law, usually with the mother as a legal advocate, and sometimes someone outside the home in relation to a father (fathers could not divorce the mother of their children - the mother had to officially sign away from him). A divorce over something like that gained the attention of the collective of the church community, in which case the excommunication and shunning of the derelict and entitled parent was very brutal. It's called collective gaslighting, meaning they were flamed out of the church community as a form of disfellowship ritual...The legality of corporal punishment didn't even come from this country, or our objective morals from the Bible. This sort of thing needs to go, now!

Fore!: What should happen to pro-spanking parents in society

 Many people avoid the biblical context on parenting because of denial of the obvious - it does not condone spanking in the slightest. The rod of correction can be visualized as a protective grandfather stepping in and whipping his errant son who abused his grandchild. Grandparents rights did exist in the Old Testament, and that is how most child abuse legislation was enforced by the Israelite government, meaning the Law, which gentile Christians such as I keep in spirit. Knock them all out! That's what was done in the Early Church, and those were the good old days.

The Early Church was not friendly to pro-spanking parents. Spanking was explicitly banned under church ordinance, even as Greco-Roman fathers whipped their sons and spanked their daughters. Children could bear witness to the abuse from their parents, usually through the co-parent, usually the mother. Women, unlike elsewhere in the ancient world, were equal to men in terms of church citizenship. Children were not to be punished because they were not full citizens, meaning they were presumed to be ignorant of the Law, and thus indemnified of any punishment.

Church structure was based on collective judgment, meaning collective gaslighting, meaning the Early Christian churches were gaslighting organizations that operated at the lowest level of Greco-Roman society, meaning the lowest caste. An abusive parent was first flagged by another parent or a co-parent, alongside the child him/herself. The Early Christian judgment style was lamppost judgment, meaning judgment was overt, meaning when you were being judged, you knew you were being judged, and if you didn't confess within a certain amount of time, you would be flamed out of the church community by every member of the congregation, and perhaps left to be charged with any Roman law if applicable, which always was in the adverse tense, since being a Christian alone was a violation of Roman law.

Today, pro-social stalking, meaning "stagecoach" gaslighting, of parents who identify themselves in the store is acceptable. I don't confront parents in the store. I simply take notes for the Lord, as a righteous judge behind enemy lines. Sometimes I publish the big fish that trigger my parental rights trauma, and sometimes I post the most miniscule and irrelevant acts of entitled abuse to show that children's rights has that power - we can publish what we see, and document it on a blog. It's called subversive gaslighting, in note format, leading to shunning by way of association meaning lack thereof. Document a parent sighting, and put it on the blog, with a description of the defendant, being judge and jury over the parent already. The main standard that existed in the Early Church applies today, meaning the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, with due suspicion "beyond what the eye can see", in the form of double-sided judgment.

The depraved and entitled parents shall be excommunicated from God's Church until they learn to behave, and treat their children with respect! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Why the conservative church is changing on behalf of children (and why this may lead to a legal ban)

 Many people in the anti-spanking world distrust fundamentalist Christians. I myself am one in the literal tense of the term, before the left corrupted it. I go by the whole Bible, not just the parts I like. You actually can, and if you understand the whole context, the Bible is a pro-child, anti-spanking document. Things are improving in the conservative church, and so maybe I can attend the building someday, instead of solitary membership of God's Church.

In the past, things were very hard on children growing up in conservative religious homes, meaning most conservative Christians see children as having a will that needs to be broken. I do get into the concept that children have a will, but they are capable, even at a young age, of breaking it all on their own by modeling after their non-violent, gentle parents - their will to sin depletes when their loving parents who don't punish don't sin in their vicinity. Most conservative parents are very different from how I would be, and see "breaking their will" as literally whipping them to the point where they are begging for mercy, then "instructing" them, often in an order that is age inappropriate, meaning they shouldn't know Hell exists until they are a teenager, and only by absorbed teaching or asking parents questions. Much of my religious teaching would involve questions, with them asking questions, and me maybe asking questions in return to get them to think for themselves on religious instruction, as was the method fathers used to teach their sons the Law in the Bible.

How have things changed? Not much, if anything. No conservative church, apart from LDS and the United Church of Christ, has statements against spanking or else anti-spanking leadership, and even then, anti-spanking ideas haven't flowed through the veins that make up communication on church policy. Most denominations, conservative or liberal, are silent on the spanking issue, meaning leaving it up to parents. However, most pastors are for spanking individually, so this doesn't make much of a dent in the church abuse problem. But, on the other hand, churches have gotten better at accommodating anti-spanking, gentle parenting members, meaning they aren't kicked out, but are simply given a back seat in the church, at are the lowest in terms of church hierarchy. Thus progress is slow in this regard, but sure.

America is not going to become a godless country, and even in Europe, most countries that are anti-spanking are Christian, but in the way most Christians here believe, liberal or conservative. There really is no such thing as a secular country, as the children's rights movement in those countries incorporated children's rights into the cultures there. In our culture, we go by Christian family values and the teaching of depravity, meaning our roots are Calvinistic in nature. This can be reconciles with our movement by flipping the scripts on the parents. We have religious roots here at children's rights, but the abusers stole them, and now I want to bring that back.

Change on these issues comes from within the church, and then without to the whole of society, then leading to legal change in which all abuse of children is prohibited, including physical and mental punishment.

If most conservative Christians knew where the teaching of "biblical spanking" came from, they wouldn't do it, It was an idolatrous practice, where children were whipped by pagan families in Greco-Roman culture, and adolescent girls were spanked to force chastity requirements on them, "lest they sexually threaten the men". The Mosaic Law only allowed for judicial corporal punishment, and only of adults, with the father acting out of place on behalf of the Israelite government, otherwise being a friend to his son, gently imparting the Law to his son by being strict on himself, and encouraging his son to be strict with himself accordingly. Spanking a child is idolatry because it's only real justification in our society is the "reasonable chastisement" defense, which comes from Roman law, and the Roman legal custom of patrias potestas, meaning the father owns his wife and children, whereas Jewish law simply called for the man to be the breadwinner, and encouraged him to show love to his wife, not be bitter with his wife, and punish her only with her consent. Very few women would consent to physical punishment now, though that option remains as long as a contract is signed or else state assault and battery laws are obeyed - person A striking person B with the consent of the latter is not battery if there are no injuries, with assault meaning injuries. Most men were pressured to be pacifists, meaning most domestic discipline in Christian homes was in the form of verbal rebuke, with the wife listening and respecting her husband since he otherwise was chivalrous to her and provided for her. There was no such thing as striking a child then, because the Apostle Paul cracked down on it in the Ephesian and Colossian churches, as depicted in the Pauline Epistles (Col. 3:21; Eph. 6:4). "Punitive custody" meant simply that a husband's word was binding law for a wife, but with her having the right to leave with the children at any time she perceived her husband to be entitled or abusive, meaning whatever the woman perceived. We are talking sensory gaslighting here. "Providing custody" meant a parent's word was not the law, but simply gentle teaching and instruction. Neither role involved any proprietarian ownership of one's family by a man. It was a caregiver/ward type setup. When the Roman Catholic Church was founded in the 3rd Century, meaning when Rome became a Christian nation, many pagan elements were conflated with Judaeo-Christian elements to sell God's Word to pagan cultures. The teaching of spanking was one of those teachings that was made up by the Catholic Church, based on pagan customs that were absorbed into Catholic teaching. Spanking and whipping of "errant" children is what pagans did in Europe before the coming of Christianity, and the Roman Catholic Church left the custom go in those European cultures, even as they otherwise converted to Christianity and claimed Christ as their Savior.

There is nothing Christian or conservative about spanking or punishing children, even if most Christian parents are punitive parents. It is an idolatrous, pagan practice, based on the Catholic infiltration of God's church with entitled, violent pagan ideas. The church is starting to get the message, albeit slowly, and is abandoning support for the corporal punishment of children, starting with the United Methodist Church in 2003. Most individual churches do support "biblical spanking" in the United States, but most denominations at least nod to gentle parents, so it is a start. Sweden had a state church when striking children was banned, and the church then was okay with a ban, and was long before then. That means what clergy have to say about child abuse has a lot to do with whether state houses pass anti-spanking laws. Most American parents get their parenting advice through religious sources, and once those religious sources become more updated and enlightened in their hermeneutics and biblical research, they will come to oppose spanking, perhaps as strongly as I do. Things are getting better, and we hope that the change goes further.

The scientific reason as to why parents were born in original sin

 Many adults here who, by my standards, admit their sin nature in relation to children, do not understand my view on the doctrine of original sin. The view is not an un-biblical one, but rather a connotational teaching that covers the whole Bible, starting in Genesis. I believe the story of Adam and Eve to be allegorical for how human history went about. It also shows that, like implied throughout the Bible, that man is flawed, and needs a Savior.

What is a parent? A parent can be separated from its human host. All parents have both good and bad qualities, but bragging about the good aspects of parents is a sign of entitlement in a parent, whereas focusing on flaws, and identifying by flaws as a parent, is the right way to go about things. The sin nature of parents all hangs on a thread.

There are two types of parental thread that post a risk to children, meaning physical or sexual (pedophilia is the mental health diagnosis denoting the sexual thread), and every single parent, and every single adult, has these threads, and the function for these threads is a sinful one - to control and manipulate children, and then trauma bond them, instead of reason with them as human beings. For much of history before Moses, and before Christ, many ancient societies endorsed familial incest as a means of trauma bonding after physical abuse and battering.

We as adults have a history of keeping children down, and oppressing them. Things are getting better, but have actually gotten worse since Rome became a Christian country. Before then, some societies hated children, and some, like Ancient Israel, understood children's rights to at least a basic degree. Many of our children's rights tenets come from the biblical context, even if many of their advocates can be secular in orientation. 

Let's turn the page from child hatred. We all hate children at some level, and if you can admit that, you are good, in terms of salvation according to my Christian beliefs. Yes, that's the test I hold, and I expect every gentle parent to pass it, because I know they will. Therefore, if you can admit that you hate children, you love them enough to change to be better for them.

Where did spanking actually come from: The anti-Christian roots of spanking

 Many people assume that we got spanking from the Bible, and there are layers of immersion into this myth. Most progressive Christians will quote the phrase "Spare the rod, spoil the child" which came from a sexualized poem from the 1500s. Attachment parenting is actually a Christian doctrine, whereas spanking is a pagan doctrine. Spanking is idolatry, and there is a reason why.

It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

This passage, in context, describes attachment parenting. Secure attachment, from the child's standpoint, feels like surrender to parents of a peaceable, reassuring type, like a lamp looking down into your core, and you knowing that the rays of that lamp are full of love and grace. I'm mentioning my relationship with my mother here. The Greek root word that denotes this surrender is υπακουο and refers to selfless care and providence from parents, with children owing nothing in return to parents. It is the deepest form of love available - unconditional love for a child. This is how Hebrew parents loved their children in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, in the Early Christian context, there was a problem - spanking.

Colossae was a city-state under the control of the Hellenistic empire, and was a part of Rome. Spanking girls was the norm then, in order to "purify" them for being "unchaste". Corporal punishment was also used on young boys. This was a violation of church ordinances. Vs. 21, and similar verses, refer to the Apostle Paul coming in and setting things straight, ordering Christian fathers not to be violent or harsh with their children, and to teach them gently...These spanking rituals were pagan in origin. Violence as a way to teach is alien to the Hebraic context of the Bible, whereas moral and religious instruction was more of an exploration of the facts, using Socratic reasoning, therefore allowing young sons being taught the Law to question their father's interpretation of Scripture, and for both to test it out together. 

Spanking was popularized after Rome became Christian in the 3rd Century, as the European powers all endorsed spanking in their local folk culture, which was intertwined with their Christian faith, as the Catholic church proselytized by using their host country's gods to help understand the Judaeo-Christian God. 

Spanking was a solidified custom under Roman law, in the form of "reasonable chastisement" which came from the concept of patria potestas which means total control over the family by a man, which is also alien to the Hebraic context of the Bible, where men provided for their wives and were commanded to respect their wife and children, with Christian women having the right to divorce.

Christian women has a status in Greco-Roman society of being well-off, as were their children, due to the unusually egalitarian nature of the Early Church. Col. 3:21 refers to the damages aspect, with the Greek root word denoting provocation to anger being ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to legal damages, namely core evidence of a moral crime, such as fight-or-flight reactions to adult behavior. Any behavior that offended the child could be reported to the mother, leading to a divorce. Divorce was severing of a contract, combined with shunning. No other society then gave women these sorts of rights, and most converts to Christianity were women for this reason.

The depraved and entitled parents who spank children not only commit kidnapping, but also idolatry, since corporal punishment of children is a pagan custom. Let them rot in Hell! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!