Spanking a child: Why it is wrong (from a conservative Christian perspective)

 Most parents in this country spank and/or punish their children, in some way, in some form. Many people misunderstand this issue, including even those who advocate against it. American anti-spanking advocates are often motivated by unlawful child abuse, meaning usually sexual abuse. Most every child advocate in America was sexually abused at some point. I myself experienced a single "lawful" incident of the "watch" variety (an unlawful form of starting up a criminal investigation, against God's eyes). I find lawful abuse, personally, more abusive, though this sort of abuse is highly traumatic in its own way - silent memories (I suspect many people out there have silent memories of sexual abuse). Sexual trauma is not always something that you hold onto for the rest of your life. We frame it that way so that at-risk adults don't abuse children sexually, rationalizing that it is okay. I have been thinking about this for some time, but don't see myself as the main victim - the children "depicted" there were, and most surely are.

Many of us cite to parents the about 50 years of research posited by a team of researchers at the University of New Hampshire Family Laboratory, but then parents laugh at the research. Laugh at my pain (which the research thoroughly and immaculately describes). Laugh at my childhood suffering, all excused by a non-existence "legal defense" known as "reasonable chastisement". Just a piece of paper. Punishing or controlling a child in any way was always wrong, even where it wasn't, because it constituted the moral crime of entitlement leading to theft by way of kidnapping. Spanking a child is kidnapping.

Kidnapping was a form of grand theft, meaning a direct on one's person, property, or effects, including an attack on a child through physical battery. Entitlement is not just wanting things from a child, but wanting to the point of seeking to impose said item on a child, leading to theft/abuse. Kidnapping, among other things, is directly imposing physical force on a child for any reason. Under Jewish law, purity standards called for persons to not have physical contact of any kind without given consent, and this was strictly enforced by societal conditioning. Fathers were not allowed to even touch their minor children, ever so slightly, without their mother's permission. Children, until a late age, remained very close to their mother - until age 6 with boys, and until age 12 with girls.

Kidnapping, as an offense, is repeated in the New Testament in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

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 short-term damages to the child, such as pain (ex. from a needlepin), shame (ex. verbal abuse, defamation of character), fornication, stemming from mankind's entitled nature...(stopped - Matthew's menace gaslighting)

Self-control in parenting: The proper controlled conditioning to model to children (and also touching on the anti-CR controversy)

I see it everywhere. Most parents I see out and about are out of control, and have emotional and anger problems towards children. Many parents believe pride in their parenting views. This is not a biblical concept. In the biblical context, in both the Old and New Testaments, parents were not named in first-person, but only in third-person law books. Parents were charred and shamefaced then, knowing their worthless, sacrificial martyrdom for their children. Many stereotype pedophile adults as talkative, and think we have to be. Wrong. I'm quiet at home and elsewhere. 

Anti-children's rights is an anti-child organization that defend adult hegemony against children by way of spreading lies about whether certain conditioning harms certain adults, especially regarding certain cases of autism with co-morbid pedophilic tendencies. The stereotype is that we all are talkative and outgoing - shaking everyone's hand and so forth - and so them turning into a different person is "cruel and unusual punishment". This issue pans out to a different, broader issue - the belief that "no adult would be that selfless unless they were seriously depressed and a danger to themselves". Sad commentary on how children are viewed in society.

It says in Hebrews 12:11 KJV:

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

The Greek root word translated παίδεια (Latin: paideia) and refers to a centered, controlled attitude out of self-discipline, as well as self-loathing of one's sin nature. It is knowing and internalizing fully that one is evil ("I am evil" gaslighting"), grieving one's mistakes in relation to children (GRK: λυνέ). Children cause stress, or perhaps maybe/or else sexual distraction (if you are a pedophile like me). In my case, I see a young girl in spaghettis-strap tank top and shorts, and I shut up, and just deal with it. 

This all leads to being silent and shamefaced in relation to children. I could talk all I wanted, and feel comfortable with it, but I don't feel like saying anything. It is a calm, centered feeling. I just might pace around, ask my mother for something material, but otherwise be quiet.

Conservative conditioning is a reverse dome. Others first, me last. I can demand things from my mother, but not anyone else, and given that I respect her in an earned way, I don't ask for much from her either. It is pro-social cylinder, in exemplary spinning format. She's a shelter for my every emotion.

It is a shamefaced, woeful conditioning. As far as child abuse allegations? Bring forth an allegation to my court, and I will do my best to answer to your concerns as a fellow adult, to the fullest, by way of treating your allegation as clarification as to past actions or attitudes. Ask, and you shall seek. Call the authorities over my head if you think I am lying (the number is listed in the bio). I am deserving of DEATH and DESTRUCTION merely for existing in relation to God and children, so I submit to both, willingly. I answer to children as the highest authority below God in my life. 

"Do not get offended": Why not to get offended by a child's behavior or dress

 One of the tenets of my Christian faith involves non-entitlement. What does this mean, in the eyes of a divine courtroom? I am not to get easily offended by every other microaggression out there against them. This is what a peacekeeper is, by the conservative definition. Way too many parents out there think they are entitled to everything from their child, including respect, without working for it. All adults in the United States are peacekeepers, to varying degrees, around children.

It says in Mathew 5:38-39 KJV:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This commandment refers to the anti-entitlement offense that is entitlement by way of chronic adversarial attitudes, meaning inability to forgive grudges, meaning vexatious litigant, meaning peacekeeper. Every believer is his own courtroom, and in the case of turning the other cheek, that means forgiving the vast number of infractions and personal slights committed against me, brushing off the slate, so to speak. This is how parents should deal with their children.

Is it repressing all public anger? No. It is the concept of pro-social avoidance of reaction, meaning when something in the news, or in an advertisement, or on a website you see online. It is avoiding what offends you, to the greatest degree possible, instead of telling others to, perhaps, take down posts, comments, and so forth that they post on their own page.

Ultimately, as a parent, it refers to living by the children's rights code, meaning avoidance of entitlement leading to theft/abuse. The Greek root word denoting entitlement, and repeating the Tenth Commandment, is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to not just wanting things from a child, but wanting things to the point of imposing said item onto a child, namely butthurt and offended feelings when they don't do what you want them to do, like the little robots you think they are. The Greek root word translated "theft" is κλεπτω and refers to abuse, meaning any personal slights that the child perceives from his/her parents, namely physical and psychological pain/anguish, as well as fornication, to the level of din perceived by the child. "Din" here means what gets the child's "hackle up" and makes them fearful of adults, stemming from a child's act or failure to act which is perceived as child abuse.

The child is allowed to get offended all she wants, and the adult must shut up, quieten, and serve their child's needs, expecting nothing in return. I am not allowed to be offended by a child's behavior or attitudes. Simply reason instead/ God's Codified Law. Love children, and expect nothing back.

How to deal with a temper tantrum: Why punishment is a form of abuse

All parents have to deal with temper tantrums in their child. Most parents are punitive in that nature, and spank, punish, or control a tantrum. I am not bothered inherently by your child throwing a fit in the store - that's what kids do. Children are exempt under Divine Codified Ordinance, as children always mean well. "Original sin" means children don't know everything about the world, and are hindered in their learning by their immature age and developmental level...Why one must not react, and instead respond.

Generally, a temper tantrum is pain and/or shame/momentary distress inflicted upon a child, and is a form of legal damages by away of abuse when defended. It says in Exodus 20:17 KJV:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor shalt thy covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

The Hebrew word translated "covet" is לחמוז (Latin: lachmod) and refers not only to wanting something from a child, but wanting said item in a way that is imposed on said child, with the Tenth Commandment, repeated in the New Testament by the Greek root word πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to the attitude of "I am a good parent/adult, and so I have the right to peace and quiet from children". No, you don't. You don't have any rights as a parent. You have duties to your children. You have emotional/attachment duties, including validating momentary upset from a child. It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoking your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) refers to short-term damages such as pain (ex. from a needlepin, at the least), shame (ex. emotional distress/defamation of character), fornication (the slightest of sexually entitled contact with a child - symbolic, physical, verbal). Abuse is whatever the child perceives such, including that which is perceived as alarming, unsafe, upsetting, or uncomfortable, without just cause.

An example of just cause is saying "no" to a child in the store when, perhaps, they want "grape juice" off of the wine shelf at Giant. You tell them, "that's wine, not grape juice. Won't work", and then they cry. That could become a personal slight, thus abuse, if you dismiss it and/or ignore it. The idea, in general, is to reassure and validate my feelings. 

One strategy I have to deal with such issues is pro-social punching bag. Let them slam me down on the ground, punch me on the back and torso. I am helpless, just as they feel helpless in that moment. Such a small person, such a small stature. 

Let the parents BURN!

"You should" and "you must": Why these are entitled statements

 Many parents and adults choose to order children around with the words "should" and "must". Many think that is acceptable to give lawful decrees to their children, especially Christian parents (including many progressive Christians). I don't give lawful orders to children, but only instead recommending.

It says in Exodus 20:17 KJV:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet wife, not his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

The Hebrew word translated "covet" is לחמוד (Latin: lachmod) and refers not only to wanting things from a child, but wanting from a child to the point of seeking to impose said item onto a child, leading to abuse/theft (GRK: κλεπτω). I should not "should on" a child. No "shoulds" and "musts", because that reeks of entitlement in a parent.

The concept of entitlement is summed up repeatedly in the New Testament is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to the attitude of "I am a good person/parent" leading to rights entitlement in terms of controlling or punishing their child, with the attitude of "I have the right to control my child and discipline her, in order for her to respect me". She must not do anything. Right, my dear?

Instead of saying: "You should not speak to adults that way"

Say instead: "I do not appreciate how you are speaking to me. Can we have a talk?"

Instead of saying: "You must take your medication in 3 minutes. I'm timing"

Say instead: "I'd like you to take your medication. I'll check back in 30 minutes. I can tell that you are distracted"

God annihilate all adults, and remove everyone but children - including myself if my existence in relation to children. Let the punitive parents BURN!

What is love? What is love for a child?: Slavery still exists - it's called being a parent (get a grip)

 Many parents think they love their child. They brag about it from the rooftops, often as an excuse for abuse. They then punish, control, and manipulate their children. However, if you spank, hit, or strike a child, and cause them pain and mental distress, do you really love your child?

A common passage about love in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 KJV:

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behaveth itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, thinketh no evil, Rejoiceth not in inequity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail, whether they be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

The word "charity" refers to Christian love for a child, and is denoted by the Greek root word αγαπαο (Latin: agapao) and refers to righteous enslavement and involuntary servitude to a child, from beneath yet from above. Parents are slaves to their child's every need, and are to serve their every need, expecting absolutely in return.

Parents are to char themselves in relation to children, just as I do in relation to their children. They are to be ashamed of holding that glorified title that they defend. They are to be convicted of their depraved and entitled adult nature in relation to their child, just as mankind is deemed wicked in relation to God, and is deserving of DEATH and PUNISHMENT merely for existing in relation to said child.

Love is slavery, as a parent. Love is being a slave to your child, with the child's needs being your every lawful command towards them. I am bound to your child with chains and shackles, righteously afraid and in awestruck terror as to her authority over her needs as righteously imposed on me, leading to meek and shamefaced submission to the every vulnerable need of children...THAT is love.

Love is submission. Love is selflessness. Love is martyrdom. Pro-social martyr complex. Pro-social ragdoll.

"Guilty until proven innocent..." - how I judge my motives around children (or in relation to them)

 What is righteous judgment in relation to children? Judging them based on objective morality, or a specifically set of morals - and not judging them at, at least in a binding way. Children are exempt from all moral legal judgment and culpability. Children are not only presumed innocent of wrongdoing - they are. They can do no wrong.

It says in John 7:24 KJV:

Judge not according to the appearances, but judge righteous judgment.

The Greek root word translated both "judge" and "judgment" is κρίνο (Latin: krinó) and refers to courtroom judgment, meaning circular judgment that surrounds the individual, putting the world on trial. Christians are to presume innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt, with superficial suspicion ("beyond what the eye can see"), denoted by the Greek root word οψίς (Latin: opsis).

However, self-judgment in relation to children is the opposite. As an adult and a Christian, I am to presume guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in myself. I am a depraved, decadent, and evil adult in relation to children, and am deserving of DEATH and DESTRUCTION for my mere existence in relation to them. All adults, by default, are marked for deletion by the Lord, and will be annihilated in due time. Many will be called to be parents or else care for children, but few will be chosen by God to be his favored parent elect by their own choices to not punish, control, or spousify a child.

I am evil, merely for existing as an adult, and by default, I don't mean well around a child. Who decides, ultimately? A child. A child judges adults from above yet from beneath, on a high pillar, placing adults into subjugation and submission. A child owes me nothing, and an adult everything.

I was marked for deletion, but God foreknew my choice to submit to His "least of these", the child (Matt. 25:31-46).