I believe corporal punishment definitely has a place but few people seem to know where that place is. 
For most people, corporal punishment becomes continual, while it should be an, at most, occasionally enforced. It’s like the Hebrews never learned about positive/negative reinforcement and stuff, overall that Proverb reeks of the times. It was probably all they knew back then.
I found something strange -
When a child is punished for doing wrong, but almost like an after thought are expected to apologize for the wrong ‘after’ the punishment, it actually defeats the purpose and the child will not apologize or admit wrong (since they already were punished for it). They will see the apology as an extra punishment instead of part of a learning process.
If the punishment includes admission of wrong within it, then the child seems to understand the reason why they are being punished is because of the wrong they did and they will apologize.
However, If someone continues to hold the offense against the child even after he was punished and admitted he was wrong, the child resents the one who disciplined them because they are being continually punished for something they already were punished for and apologized concerning and may even change their mind concerning whether it was wrong or not even going out of their way to do wrong (why? They keep getting punished for it even though they do not do it anymore)
Hence why I don’t believe in Original Sin.
Anthony - I couldn’t agree more with you. Yes coporal punishment does often have this self defeating quality in my view. Cheers 
What you’re saying also applies to criminals pretty well. We tend to mark a criminal for life, resulting in essentially recurring punishment, and I believe this is a large factor in high recidivism rate: there’s no reason to go back to being a law-abiding citizen of the society still hates you.
When I said continual, though, I was referring to the situation where the punishment had little to no effect, and the child continues doing wrong, and continues to be punished, and this goes on for 10 years.
A more major issue I’ve seen is punishing a child for something they cannot identify (i.e., they do not understand what they did wrong, or why something is bad).
I agree Bird - very much so; and that fits into somehitng that keeps ‘hitting’ me - that how conceive of the beginning and the end radically affects how we act now. What do we mean by punishment? As far as I can see, it’s to do with actively inflicing bad/pain on someone (the lash for or verbal humiliation for example), or depriving them of something good (sweeties/their freedom - could be early bed time or prison) because -
It deters the person being punished from actnig inthis way again
It deters others from doing what they have done (which can’t apply to the final judgement - I think?)
They deserve it and it is the state’s or God’s way of demonstrating this decisively (tricky in the case of the state which always has crime on its hands no matter how enlightened it is)
It is actually the consequnce of their own actions that people are punished fro by being handed over to these consequences-
because they are free agents and need to learn their own lessons - with support
because they are free agents and it is not possiblt to support them in the consequences of their actions because they have chosen wrongly
It is a remedial, corrective ,restorative process whereby people are maade to grow up by fully confromting the people they have hurt and making full recompense (a process that could take a long time and be very painful in the nakedness of final judgement)
It could by some combination of the above of course. And which do we think are compatible with the Augustinian exaggerated doctrineof Original Sin ?- and which with scriptual notions?
Cheers
Dick
Well my questions didn’t spark anything so they can’t have been very good ones. My answer would be that well, within the Augustinian Original Sin mindset punishment as pure retribution at first would seem to be the primary sense of punishment. However, it all gets rather confused because Augustine was the first strong exponent of Predestination - the inescapable love of God for the small number pre-elected to be saved, and the inescapable wrath of God for the large number pre-elected to be born to damnation (which is impossible for anyone from an Armenian background, like me, to get their heads around).
Mainstream ideas of retributive criminal justice have to be based in the notion of human freedom - you are punished for doing wrong because you were always free to choose otherwise, and it is essential that the right person be punished, and that mitigating circumstances be weighed carefully. Some of the strongest argument against the death penalty - for example - come from the retributivist camp; it is always possible (as we know) for there to be a miscarriage of justice and for an innocent person to be killed (and this argument stands in the Jewish tradition of horror at the shedding of innocent blood and horror at the possibility that justice may have heard from false witnesses). Justice for the purpose of deterrence is actually more compatible with Original Sin ideas - everybody is equally guilty and so if sometimes the punishment of an innocent person helps to keep the rest of us cowed with fear then so be it.
Regarding God’s justice - ‘Vengeance is mine’, as it is written - and this is another slogan of retribution. However I take this to mean that we should leave vengeance to God who knows the whole truth and not carry it out ourselves. My instinct for what God’s justice means inclines towards ideas of restorative justice and of justice as a process of being handed over to the consequences of our actions (with loving support) - because our Judge is the same Christ who was handed over by Judas to the illegal Sanhedrin, handed over by them in turn (through fear and envy of Roman power), to Pilate (goaded by a crowd who, again, feared and envied Roman power), and then handed over finally to be executed under the wrath of Roman power. So the Judge has already stood in the place of wrath with and for us.
Any other thoughts on how this relates to the education of children? – There was another interesting article in the UK press today that chimes with Anthony’s insight (above) into punishment and resentment.
All the best
Dick
Did the above post a but quickly and have not made clear distinctions –
Lets’ put punishment in the context of justice – the setting of things to right (power, relationships etc)
There is justice at the beginning (the justice in the education and rearing of children )
There is justice in the middle (the justice of moral codes and of codes of criminal and civil law )
And there is justice at the end (the justice of Christ’s judgement on us – which is the fulfilment of the beginning and the middle).
Both punishment and acts of restitution/restoration will be a feature of all three.
For the moment I’ll just say that my comments about retribution and deterrence above concerned justice in the middle (I’m sure that people from an Augustinian perspective think they see justice in the middle in terms of retribution according to what is deserved; but my point above is that if they are consistent with their ideas of predestination their ‘justice in the middle’ has to be for reasons of deterrence.
If this is too complex for a thread I’ll change tack.
torontosun.com/2012/01/29/wh … omar-khadr
The child who killed the American Soldier and now is in Guantanamo Bay is now a worse criminal and more fanatical jihadist than what would have happened had he been released and sent back to Canada. Now, instead, he will be considered the next leader of a Jihad Islamic Terrorist organization who has no resentment for what he did and will plan more.
Yes Anthony - I agree with you. The way I’m using ‘resentment’ is as feeling directed against itself rather than as remorse. It’s the feeling of wanting to get back, of wanting to be the one in power doing the hurting next time (almost a form of envy). Punishment if it causes resentment simply fuels the cycle of violence. The article I read argued that children are not born bad. They are not born wanting to harm, or hurt or steal. Circumstances do this to them - adults do (and I would add that the adults who do this to them had this done to them in turn). The author goes on to say - very relevant to our discussion - that 'Children are not monsters needing the ‘evil’ smacked out of them; reverse that, you might get closer to the truth. If you smack your child to teach them self control all you are doing is to show that you’ve lost control. They may do what you say at first – because they are afraid. But they won’t stay like that for long. Ultimately the fear will turn to anger, then to pity if you’re lucky, and to resentment if you are not.
So any punishment that real justice administers - that is God’s justice - would have to be such that it broke rather than fuelled the cycle of resentment.
Here we ponder – I certainly don’t know all of the answers. (Although I can feel a post coming about the notion of childhood innocence which I think needs clarifying)
All the best
Dick
Of course all that ‘sin is missing the mark’ stuff is right and we do all need the correction of a loving parent. But increasingly, I see sin, or rather, our sinful tendencies, as something we all need healing of and freeing from. Derek Flood’s work over at the Rebel God blog, already cited on this thread, has been more helpful than I can say.
Dick, you asked me about how my theological metamorphosis has affected my practice of baptism. The simple answer is that I haven’t really thought about it! Except that with all the sacraments I am more than ever aware of their value in encouraging and nurturing faith, and the fact that whatever we think we are doing is at best a pale shadow of God’s transforming work in every human being.
Of course all that ‘sin is missing the mark’ stuff is right and we do all need the correction of a loving parent. But increasingly, I see sin, or rather, our sinful tendencies, as something we all need healing of and freeing from. Derek Flood’s work over at the Rebel God blog, already cited on this thread, has been more helpful than I can say.
Dick, you asked me about how my theological metamorphosis has affected my practice of baptism. The simple answer is that I haven’t really thought about it! Except that with all the sacraments I am more than ever aware of their value in encouraging and nurturing faith, and the fact that whatever we think we are doing is at best a pale shadow of God’s transforming work in every human being.
I often wonder if we are completely and utterly clueless in terms of what God appears to say and what he actually means. 
“You heard: eye for an eye, but I tell you: turn the other cheek”.
I actually consider baptism to be rather important. I don’t think it’s necessary or sufficient for anything when push comes to shove, but the way my faith came about, it’s going to be a pretty important thing for me, and basically the point where I say “yes, I want this”.
Well said Bird. I mostly find myself baptising infants of believing parents. In the anglican/ episcopalian churches that wonderful moment of “yes, I want this” is usually expressed in confirmation and of course ordination which - hoping no bishops are listening - is really the same thing! Praying for you, Drew
Well, I’ve never been baptized, in big part because my parents thought it should be my choice. I’m still not quite sure what Confirmation is. I think most of the churches I go to do not do it. At most they have the Eucharist once in a while.
Bird said:
Wow! Really? Any believer can baptize you, Bird. All you need is a few witnesses and a body of water or a swimming (or a wading) pool. I’ve even heard of new believers in situations of persecution who, having no other options, baptized themselves.
I was saying the churches do not do Confirmation, not Baptism. As for Baptism, they all do it, of course. I was offered to get baptized in the church of a friend of mine. It’s all ETC, though, but they seem not care about that baptism-wise. I also recall spending a lot of time figuring out which baptism is correct. I recall some guy on reddit who kept saying anyone not baptised with full immersion is unsaved. Not to mention the Trinity issue.
Yeah, but to me it’s kinda a big deal and I don’t want to rush it. Maybe I’ll decide Christianity is all false. Again. >>
I also look forward to the: “Mom. Dad. I want to get baptized.” “Did you go insane? Are you in a cult? I knew you were in a cult, going to church on Sundays…”
ahem
So, to get this back on topic…
I was reading something, maybe even on this forum, about a person suggesting that Adam-Eve were already imperfect in the Garden itself, which is why they disobeyed. Not that they became imperfect after eating the apple. I’m not sure how I feel about that. I still wonder who were the people who actually decided this and how.
being created imperfect…or unfinished, perhaps? maybe we are still in that process of creation now?
one wonders how all this fits into evolution. i know we have creationists and evolutionists present, but the idea of through one man sin came into the world, and through one Man we are all reconciled, which boils down to original sin in some fashion, appears to be important to universalism (though i still feel the meta-narrative carries the day).
i guess i figure if Original Sin is true, ie one specific sin led to all humanity’s downfall (an idea i think i’m personally ok with), then the first proper humans, gifted with sentience, were the first to be disobedient.
or maybe it’s less simple and Adam and Eve are symbols rather than people. in which case original sin in my life is the first time i sinned, personally. Paul could have believed in a literal Adam and Eve, and used them to build his idea that sin and death are in us all, and it still follows that the same “all” is redeemed later.
also, it’s good we define sin as missing the mark. i think it’s quite easy to come up with lists of acceptable and unacceptable things, and that list may work in ideal situations, but will fail to be relevant or even true under a variety of other circumstances. and life is rarely ideal. for me, any situation in which we find ourselves, if we try to do the best we can, we’ll still probably miss the mark, but be closer than if we rejected the best choice.
the difficulty is that the best choice is not easy to find without foreknowledge! so all we can do is our best…and really i think that’s all we can be expected to do, which again blurs the line of what sin is.
There are many areas where Genesis is quoted as if literal, but I nevertheless do not think it’s literal.
It is similar to the “man is to die once, then judgment”. It’s making a point. Heck, sometimes I think Paul tries way too hard to draw analogies like these and I do not believe all of them. I similarly do not take “Adam was created first, then Eve, Eve ate the apple, so now all women should be in permanent submission and have pregnancy issues” very seriously, either. God was, in my view, describing a reality that will occur, not a reality that should occur (where Paul seems bent on perpetuating it).
To me, the biggest Universalist message is “I came not to condemn the world but to save the world”, “love your enemies”, etc. And the general fact that I consider God to be far more moral, good, and loving than any of us. “My ways are not your ways”.
That’s one way to look at it. Definitely valid considering the various analogies in the NT.
Yes. I think the core message of “all have fallen short” is that we should not obsess with being perfect. We can’t be perfect, and we aren’t. Too many people forfeit many things and cut of relationships because someone had a problem. Life is extremely unideal.
Of course, one can wonder what is really the purpose of the Church, and which Church. Is it supposed to be a microcosm of God’s kingdom? I seriously do not believe that anymore. I think early Christians had their special place where they were to spread Christianity and its morality for a few hundred years, but now it’s on all people, and we’re to bring it all on all earth, not keep the light locked up in a church somewhere.
agreed, some excellent points!
i like what you say about us all falling short. it follows on from that statement that we may not be perfect but we are justified freely.
i think some confusion comes in at the sermon of the mount. Jesus says “be perfect as your Father is perfect”. but this is clearly impossible, as i believe He knew. so…i think He was saying “look, don’t be a hypocrite. God demands perfection, but none of you can do it. that’s why I am here…to show the way and to conquer what holds you back”
There’s some confusion with the whole perfection issue. John (Peter) says “be without blemish when I come”, and “it’s difficult for even the righteous to be saved”. In fact, those 3 epistles sort of undermine the whole saved-by-faith and saved-imperfect issue a bit, and summon a lot of “do I have the Spirit???” issues. I asked an ETC friend of mine and he believes that those things were said for effect, but in reality it is not as strict.
I also wonder if “be without blemish” is an indication of when Jesus will actually come back. It said in some other verse “I may take 10 years or 1000 years. It is not because I am slow, but because I am patient with you lot and want you all to become saved” (this seems to not make much sense considering that more people are unsaved than not, though. People do not live that long).