Comments on Ambassador Watch: Tears in Proverbs

'herbert w. armstrong'anagrams to'Grrr! Better sho...

2007-07-25T10:34:00.000+12:00

'herbert w. armstrong'
anagrams to
'Grrr! Better showman.'

Just for comic relief

The orthodox Jewish thinking on this:Extremes of h...

2007-07-25T10:31:00.000+12:00

The orthodox Jewish thinking on this:
Extremes of harsh discipline and undue permissiveness must be avoided. According to Rav Shlomo Wolbe zt”l, “the rod” need not refer to physical punishment, or even verbal rebuke. The rod of pleasantness (Sanhedrin 24a), of encouragement, of positive reinforcement, is preferred (Planting and Building, p. 35).

Certainly, an angry parent who loses control and strikes or scolds his child, damages his child. In our times, such measures may be inappropriate even when the parent controls himself. They may lead to low self-esteem and/or rebellion (ibid pp. 36-38, based on Rav Chaim of Volozhin).

Child rearing is an exceedingly uncertain undertak...

2007-07-24T04:56:00.000+12:00

Child rearing is an exceedingly uncertain undertaking. I know many more bad stories than good, among the religious and the irreligious. And it seems like the good outcomes are more a product of good fortune rather than technique.

The context that existed for GTAs writings on this topic was of a hierarchical organization, strongly legalistic and authoritarian. What else was he likely to have developed?

The real paradox is how evangelical churches that emphasize grace also emphasize a robust agenda of corporeal punishment for children.

Armstrongism was at least consistent in its bad treatment for everybody, adjusted to your position within the hierarchy. Only HWA and GTA and a few others operated with impunity.

-- Neo

The Plain Truth About Child Rearing could be more ...

2007-07-24T02:14:00.000+12:00

The Plain Truth About Child Rearing could be more appropriately titled The Narcissist's Guide to Children.

It seems obvious at this point, as far as Herbert Armstrong was concerned, having no empathy and oft exhibiting no conscience, that children were chattels to be used for his convenience and not to be loved and treasured. He wouldn't even begin to know how to relate to his own children in a healthy way, let alone teach others how to view their own.

It is truly unfortunate that GTA created the booklet in an environment where he was never really loved all that much by his father, if at all, and certainly lived in the shadow of his brother, Richard David, as the preferred son. The booklet was created through the distorted lens of GTA's own childhood wherein he really had no guide of his own as an example as how to raise children. He probably knew as much as he could about about raising children from his wife, Shirley, when he wasn't off committing adultery screwing around with the AC coeds he seduced.

In no way should a sick dysfunctional environment be expected to produce anything viable, particularly when it comes to human relationships. Anyone who does will suffer the consequences in broken lives for a lifetime of misery.

The best advice is: Look elsewhere.

That the Armstrongists do not understand Scripture...

2007-07-24T01:05:00.000+12:00

That the Armstrongists do not understand Scripture nor apply it properly should not come as any big surprise by this time.

I am not a fan of smacking or hitting in any form ...

2007-07-24T00:55:00.000+12:00

I am not a fan of smacking or hitting in any form as a discipline for children. GTA's book was infinately annoying to me and I never mentioned it as something anyone need read. I did not grow up in a family that did a lot of spanking.

Sameuel M says:

"J. B. Rotherman's excellent translation renders it as follows: "Correct thy son, because there is hope, Yet not so as to slay him …" ... "Chasten your son while there is hope; and do not set your soul on making him die." By correcting the translation, a whole different meaning to the verse arises. The feeling shifts away from harsh, legalistic judgment to one of moderation."

I'm not sure even with that translation I'd get that meaning of moderation.

Certainly the Mosaic system was one worth teaching your child to obey because there was a death sentence for numerous infractions it seems to be concerned about growing up. Mouthy kid... kill him, unfaithful wife..kill her, sticks on the sabbath...kill them.....King commits adultery and murder...make him King over the Tribes in the World Tomorrow as a man after God's own heart. Stuff like that...

Actually Sam's updated version, "Chasten your son while there is hope; and do not set your soul on making him die." gives me a sense of "do whatever it takes so they don't kill him later." Or perhaps, "You better correct him now while there is time, but don't go so far in your mind as to think to kill him...we can do that later." Kidding a bit, but if you swapped out those renditions for what we have in the book now, people would see it that way and not first not moderation.

Baptists would take that as meaning "Spank him while you have the time but don't go to far and kill him." They would note:

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
Prov. 23:13

The empahsis here is not on "help, love and snuggle the boy now because if you don't they might kill him later for worse," as much as "beat him, and RODS are just fine, just enough so he gets the point, it won't kill him and we might have to later if you don't beat him now."

On the one hand the implication is punishment is more kind and in moderation in these scriptures but look out, the system will kill you if our moderation doesn't work.

I agree with Sam, don't get me wrong. It's the fact that how, in fact, the scripture is perceived that is the problem. The everyday appliation will never be taught to the ignorant nor accepted.

In the Bible Belt of SC, spanking is king. Generations here pride themselves on their "woopin's" and horror stories growing up when they did or didn't do something that was expected. It was and still is harsh. Churches still give out wooden "Rod's of Correction" to members.

Proverbs is taught the old fashion way and is NOT going to change I guarantee you. The fruits are still the same. Many if not most out the door first chance they get.

My gut tells me not to even worry about what Proverbs says or what the original means or meant. While there is wisdom of sorts n Proverbs, it's an Middle Eastern perspective, thousands of years old and I don't know if you have noticed, but all the true understanding of their own text in Israel and the Middle East seems not to have brought about any good fruit of how adults interact and love their neighbors as themselves after years of Bible training.

Because of what we know today more than ever on how people think and thrive and how and why children are as they are, there are many more helpful books than the Bible to refer to for advice on most things. I would not go to the Bible to address most mental, physical, emotional, sexual or relational issues. Rather Gordian of me I know, but after soaking in it for decades it just seems to be true.

It is not the best or greatest book ever written...that is a meme...a mind virus repeated often to replicate itself and spread the pain around even more. ....in my opinion.