Texas judge under fire over discipline video

[Robert Snow]

You have not answered the question. Yes or no. It is as simple as that.

Because of your nonanswer, am I right to believe then that yes, you would do (whip, beat) to your wife that which you say needs to be done (whip, beat) to this woman, if you thought she had it comming?

Yes or no.

The evidence of your own words Annsni has quoted in the previous post does not paint you in a good light. It exposes you.

If someone is determined to be a fool, there is nothing you can do to help them as long as they think they have all the answers.

 

[Scarlett O.]

This will probably get lost here on the 8th or 9th page, but oh, well.

Freeatlast, I've read this thread and found at least three times where you refer to "spare the rod spoil the child" as God's Word.

Post #58 - "Not at all. I am saying what happened was not child abuse unless you are accusing God of promoting child abuse. Spare the rod and you will spoil the child. The liberal mind-set today does not want the things of God in their life or even in others lives as it brings too much light on their failures as well as their lusts for sin."

Post #11 - "The truth is that the girl and mother both need a good whipping for the stunt they are pulling now. What took place was not criminal, but very few people today stand with God on disciplin. Spare the Rod spoil the child. This child is spoiled and the mother is helping that.

Post #20 - "No I just choose the bible. Spare the rod and you spoil the child.

You are not choosing nor quoting nor defending the Word of God.

You are quoting and defending a phrase from a 17th century epic poem by Samuel Butler. And he isn't promoting discipline of children with that phrase. He is discussing sexuality.

In his poem, Butler originated the phrase "Spare the rod and spoil the child," and although the phrase is often taken to be a Biblical injunction about child-rearing, (probably as a corruption of Book of Proverbs 13:24), it is in the context of Hudibras a bawdy metaphor suggesting the best way to curtail amorous passions or, through double entendre, to prevent conception:

If matrimony and hanging go
By dest'ny, why not whipping too?
What med'cine else can cure the fits
Of lovers when they lose their wits?
Love is a boy by poets stil'd
Then spare the rod and spoil the child (Part II, Canto I, ll. 839-44).

If one is going to defend spanking from a Biblical standpoint, and I believe that one can, then one should use the Bible to do so.

 

[freeatlast]

Yes - you answered the question that yes, you would beat your wife because you say that this woman needs a beating over and over again. Are you married? Have children? I pray that you do not.

ann twisting what someone says is no less a lie and I have noticed in your liberal walk you seem to have no problem with lying about people.

 

[freeatlast]

This will probably get lost here on the 8th or 9th page, but oh, well.

Freeatlast, I've read this thread and found at least three times where you refer to "spare the rod spoil the child" as God's Word.












You are not choosing nor quoting nor defending the Word of God.

You are quoting and defending a phrase from a 17th century epic poem by Samuel Butler. And he isn't promoting discipline of children with that phrase. He is discussing sexuality.



If one is going to defend spanking from a Biblical standpoint, and I believe that one can, then one should use the Bible to do so.

You need to read your bible.

 

[Scarlett O.]

You need to read your bible.

Cite for me the chapter and verse where you can find the phrase in question and I will read it. :flower::flower:

I'm not picking at you, FAL. I'm only suggesting that you use actual scripture references to defend scriptural assertions.

No one is immune from misquoting or mis-attributing scriptures from time to time.

We should ALL read our Bibles more.

 

[freeatlast]

Cite for me the chapter and verse where you can find the phrase in question and I will read it. :flower::flower:

I'm not picking at you, FAL. I'm only suggesting that you use actual scripture references to defend scriptural assertions.

No one is immune from misquoting or mis-attributing scriptures from time to time.

We should ALL read our Bibles more.

I was using scripture although As you know translations vary and saying it the way I said it is accurate to the meaning even if it is not exactly like the translation you use. If I say Jesus cried it is no different then saying Jesus wept. The same with this passage.

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 Whoever spares the rod hates (spoils) added for clarification) their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. ,


22:15,
New International Version (NIV)
15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,
but the rod of discipline will drive it far away.


23:13,14,
New International Version (NIV)
13 Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you punish them with the rod, they will not die.
14 Punish them with the rod
and save them from death.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I suppose if you see a Wiccan, you will kill them, since the Bible says you should not allow a witch to live. I suppose you also kill adulterers as proscribed?

 

[freeatlast]

I suppose if you see a Wiccan, you will kill them, since the Bible says you should not allow a witch to live. I suppose you also kill adulterers as proscribed?

Unlike you there is nothing in God's law for man that I see God giving being evil.

 

[annsni]

ann twisting what someone says is no less a lie and I have noticed in your liberal walk you seem to have no problem with lying about people.

Your own words betray you. And show me one time on this board where I lied. Otherwise, you are guilty of what you accuse me of.

 

[freeatlast]

Your own words betray you. And show me one time on this board where I lied. Otherwise, you are guilty of what you accuse me of.

Your post #79 is an outright lie.

 

[annsni]

Your post #79 is an outright lie.

So you mean that all the posts I quoted in post #79 were lies? You stated clearly - everyone can read it for themselves - that you feel the mother needed a beating as well as the daughter. That says that you would beat your wife had she been like that mother. Am I wrong?

Additionally, you have accused me of lying elsewhere and I've asked you to show me where. If you cannot produce the evidence, you are lying yourself.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I was using scripture although As you know translations vary and saying it the way I said it is accurate to the meaning even if it is not exactly like the translation you use. If I say Jesus cried it is no different then saying Jesus wept. The same with this passage.

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 Whoever spares the rod hates (spoils) added for clarification) their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. ,

So you changed "Whoever spares the rod hates their children" to "spare the rod and spoil the child" for clarification's sake? What exactly needed clarifying?

In my mind - changing the word "hates" to "spoils" only muddies the interpretation as those two words do not mean the same thing.

The Bible in saying "hates" their child is exposing the underlying problem in a parent's heart who will not discipline his own children. It exposes the parent's sin. And "hates" their child is the converse of the REST of the verse which teaches the proper parental role which is to love your children by showing them the Godly way to live and disciplining them.

You, by changing it to "spoils" the child, implies a consequence that the child bears. You switched the focus from the parent to the child. And a "spoiled child" cannot be the converse of a "loving parent" and cannot fit the rest of the verse.

Lastly, the word "spoil" in the Bible can be found many times and it's referring to "plunder or booty" from wartime - not a defiant child.

You did not paraphrase a "Jesus wept" into a "Jesus cried". You changed the meaning and intent of the verse.

And you did this by unintentionally citing a non-existent passage of scripture and now trying to pidgeon-hole that secular piece of bawdy poetry into the Word of God and forcing a square peg into a round hole.

I used to go around quoting "spare the rod and spoil the child" as holy scripture, myself, FAL. And I was wrong.

We've all done it.

But neither the words "spoil the child" nor your implication of those words are in the Bible.

 

[freeatlast]

So you changed "Whoever spares the rod hates their children" to "spare the rod and spoil the child" for clarification's sake? What exactly needed clarifying?

In my mind - changing the word "hates" to "spoils" only muddies the interpretation as those two words do not mean the same thing.

The Bible in saying "hates" their child is exposing the underlying problem in a parent's heart who will not discipline his own children. It exposes the parent's sin. And "hates" their child is the converse of the REST of the verse which teaches the proper parental role which is to love your children by showing them the Godly way to live and disciplining them.

You, by changing it to "spoils" the child, implies a consequence that the child bears. You switched the focus from the parent to the child. And a "spoiled child" cannot be the converse of a "loving parent" and cannot fit the rest of the verse.

Lastly, the word "spoil" in the Bible can be found many times and it's referring to "plunder or booty" from wartime - not a defiant child.

You did not paraphrase a "Jesus wept" into a "Jesus cried". You changed the meaning and intent of the verse.

And you did this by unintentionally citing a non-existent passage of scripture and now trying to pidgeon-hole that secular piece of bawdy poetry into the Word of God and forcing a square peg into a round hole.

I used to go around quoting "spare the rod and spoil the child" as holy scripture, myself, FAL. And I was wrong.

We've all done it.

But neither the words "spoil the child" nor your implication of those words are in the Bible.

If I did change the intent of the verse by using spoil instead of hate I certainly repent of it. However I personally see no difference. If a parent is guilty of hating their child because they have not levied the proper discipline then they also are spoiling them (ruining them) and the guilt is still on the parent for their lack of proper action while the result is on the child. That is the point intended. However for the sake of accuracy and to not cause confusion I will seek to use the word "hate" in the future or some other phrase from another translation. Thank you for the correction.

 

[freeatlast]

So you mean that all the posts I quoted in post #79 were lies? You stated clearly - everyone can read it for themselves - that you feel the mother needed a beating as well as the daughter. That says that you would beat your wife had she been like that mother. Am I wrong?

Additionally, you have accused me of lying elsewhere and I've asked you to show me where. If you cannot produce the evidence, you are lying yourself.

Your lie was your adding to what I said in your assessment statement. Why are you now trying so hard to wiggle out of your lie? You always do that. You tell a lie on someone and then seek to put the lie off by twisting things around. Just admit that you lied and be done with it as lying is not limited to you alone, we all have done it at some point.

 

[annsni]

Your lie was your adding to what I said in your assessment statement. Why are you now trying so hard to wiggle out of your lie?

I posted your own words - words you hang yourself with. I do not try to wiggle out of anything.

You always do that. You tell a lie on someone and then seek to put the lie off by twisting things around.

Show me one other thread where I "always do that". I dare you.

Just admit that you lied and be done with it as lying is not limited to you alone, we all have done it at some point.

I did not lie. I posted your own words. Unless those words were lies, you said what you said.

 

[freeatlast]

I posted your own words - words you hang yourself with. I do not try to wiggle out of anything.



Show me one other thread where I "always do that". I dare you.



I did not lie. I posted your own words. Unless those words were lies, you said what you said.

It was not my words that were lies. It was yours that was a lie. You sure are wiggling now like a night crawler.

 

[annsni]

It was not my words that were lies. It was yours that was a lie. You sure are wiggling now like a night crawler.

So no proof, huh?

 

[freeatlast]

So no proof, huh?

You already showed in in post #79
Here is your lie you old wiggly worm, you;
"Yes - you answered the question that yes, you would beat your wife because you say that this woman needs a beating over and over again."

That was a lie as I never suggested or stated that. In fact I never suggested or stated a that any wife should be beaten by their husband. You lied clear and simple.

 

[annsni]

You already showed in in post #79
Here your lie you old wiggly worm, you;
Yes - you answered the question that yes, you would beat your wife because you say that this woman needs a beating over and over again.

So you are saying that you would not beat your wife? That contradicts the statements in your posts. Unless you mean that you wouldn't beat your wife but if she was not your wife you would beat her? Or maybe you mean that you don't want to be accused of beating a woman but you will stand and cheer when another man beats a woman? Which is it? Because your words stand accusing you very badly.

Now I challenge you again:

ann twisting what someone says is no less a lie and I have noticed in your liberal walk you seem to have no problem with lying about people.

Why are you now trying so hard to wiggle out of your lie? You always do that. You tell a lie on someone and then seek to put the lie off by twisting things around.

You have stated that I have lied before. Prove it. If not, you are very much a liar.

 

[freeatlast]

So you are saying that you would not beat your wife? That contradicts the statements in your posts. Unless you mean that you wouldn't beat your wife but if she was not your wife you would beat her? Or maybe you mean that you don't want to be accused of beating a woman but you will stand and cheer when another man beats a woman? Which is it? Because your words stand accusing you very badly.

Now I challenge you again:





You have stated that I have lied before. Prove it. If not, you are very much a liar.

I just proved you lied here in post 79 in clear print for all to see and still you deny it so why would to accept your lies from other posts? Ann you lied! Admit it.