Is spanking wrong?

Absolutely not...

Absolutely not...

Agreed 100% with you!

Not wrong if you spank your child in a manner that is not corporal abuse whereby, scars (both physical and mental) are left.

There is definitely nothing wrong with spanking. I've spanked children at school (with their parent's permission, of course). However, in 27 years of teaching, I have probably used that alternative only a dozen times.

I was spanked as a child by my mother. I never grew to resent her nor do we have a warped relationship.

I believe the Bible supports spanking. Not as much as the some Christians believe, but I do believe it does.

You may already know this, (and forgive me if I am insulting your intelligence) but the Bible does not say, "spare the rod and spoil the child." That's a line from a 17th century poem by Samuel Butler. It's a raunchy and epic poem that encourages anti-religious beliefs and sexual wantoness.

The actual quote is this:

"...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).

I'm not going to interpret it.

What the Bible does say about disciplining children, including spanking is this:

“Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephes 6:4) and "Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged." (Colossians 3:21)

I think by sheer interpretation of these verse, that spanking is allowed, but excessive spanking or cruel spanking is forbidden.

Also there are these verses.

Proverbs 23:13 - "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die." and Proverbs 13:24 - “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” and Proverbs 22:15 - "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it from him."

Obviously spanking is allowed, but is this really what these verses are talking about?

The Hebrew word for "rod" in these passages is the word, "shebet". It has multiple meanings:


1) rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club, sceptre, tribe

a) rod, staff
b) shaft (of spear, dart)
c) club (of shepherd's implement)
d) truncheon, sceptre (mark of authority)
e) clan, tribe


One of these meanings is the "mark of authority". If a parent truly loves their child, they will claim authority over them and discipline in whatever form works for them. It could be spanking or it could be grounding or withholding of privileges. Spanking doesn't work for all children. Abused children, crack children (babies), neglected children and others require other types of discipline for discipline to be effective.

But children like I was? The best and most effective thing my mother ever did was to smack the back of my legs with her hairbrush when I was disobedient. She didn't leave marks, but I got the message loud and clear.

The Bible does not tell parents to beat their children, but it does allow room for spanking. Most of all, it encourages parents to reclaim their right as the authority of the household to keep loving discipline a part of their children's lives.

Sometimes, spanking only makes the parents feel better. Most parents spank when they are angry and spanking should never be done in anger. It's up to the parents to decide what the rules of the home are beforehand. What processes are you going to have in place that will decrease confusion in a child or will cause him/her to "do what they want" when in fact they are just 'doing' because they have no clear direction. Other alternative methods of discipline work just as well and with some children they work better than spanking.

Catching kids being good is also a good method of "discipline". I listened to story of a mother who trained her child to close the back door. When he left the door open she called him back in had him close the door and then praised him for doing so. This occurred three times and each time she called him back and then praised him for closing the door. The fourth time he closed the door himself, she went outside gave him a big hug and praised him for closing the door. He's been closing the door ever since. It's harder to catch our kids being good and praising them but the praise will go further and is more pleasant for both parties.

My parents spanked me and my brothers. It wasn't ahrd to leave a mark behind, but enough to send a message that we are to take them seriously. They wern'et out of control, they gave us 3 warnings or chances or 1 (depending the situation) before they spanked us. Only once or twice did it get to us getting our pants taken down and spanked barbottom. We learned after that and stopped with teh spankings.

I dont have a problem with spanking as long as it doesn't go too far. I dont think it is necessary for every single time we discpline them, for me it will be a definate when they run across the street when they know they are nto supposed to, run away from me in the parkinglot/store or hurt another child ro sibling. Other cases, it will be the last resort. And I will not spank them in a public place, it will be done at home but they will know what they are expecting.

Some kids may not need spanking, it depends on each kid I guess. My parents tried sending us to our rooms, putting us in the corner taking toys away, never worked. We just found other things to do. Spanking is what got our intention. And I htink spanking shoud only be 2-3 open hands swats, not hard enogh to leave bruising and never done in anger.

I got the spankies. :S No fun, but they do the job.

If one parent spanks is it fair to say the other parent should spant too or doesn't it matter?

If one parent spanks is it fair to say the other parent should spant too or doesn't it matter?

Why? Is it fair for the child to be punished twice for the same crime?

If one parent is opposed to spanking their child then why should they just because the other parent is not opposed to it. Discipline should be decided between the parents well before it ever takes place. And once the child needs to be disciplined it's not a bad idea for the parents to talk about what to do first and put up a united front. This also allows for a cooling down period for the parent (s) if needed and a more objective look at the situation.

I think it depends on the child and the parent. If the parent can spank out of love and not anger, and if this type of discipline works on the child. Both of my children have received swats...this is usually enough. I have only had to spank a handful of times. Each time we discuss why we are there, and after we spend time in hugs and again explaining why.

Is spanking wrong?

Is it wrong not to spank? (As long as other methods of discippline are used) D in Georgia

What's wrong with anger, and why should a child not know or understand that certain actions will arouse anger in their parents?

It seems like Christians always say, "Spanking is okay . . . but just not in anger!" I don't know of any scriptures that state it is wrong to either get angry at your children or to discipline while you are angry with them.

What's wrong with anger, and why should a child not know or understand that certain actions will arouse anger in their parents?

It seems like Christians always say, "Spanking is okay . . . but just not in anger!" I don't know of any scriptures that state it is wrong to either get angry at your children or to discipline while you are angry with them.

If you look at scecular research violence begats violence. In other words, when a child is subjected to discipline while the parent (role model) is in an angry state then the child will learn that in order to discipline or be punitive one must do so when angry. I'm not saying that a child should never see that they have aroused emotion in others but how are we going to properly teach them to deal with emotion if we don't model it correctly. Saying to the child, "I'm angry. I'm going to cool down and then we will deal with this." This shows them that anger has to be dealt with in a proper manner.

From a Christian perspective, does God discipline us because we have angered Him or does He discipline us because the discipline itself (not His emotion to our disobedience) is what will help us grow. In Hebrew 12: 5-11 talks of God's discipline and in verse 10b it says, "but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in His holiness". That tells me that it's the discipline not the emotion of the parent (in this case God) that reaps rewards for the child.

If you look at scecular research violence begats violence. In other words, when a child is subjected to discipline while the parent (role model) is in an angry state then the child will learn that in order to discipline or be punitive one must do so when angry.

That's because secular research is done on secular families who live very secular lives. It is very possible to be angry and not sin in the process. It's very possible to be angry and discipline your child without allowing it to become sinful. That is the beauty of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of self control. There is nothing sinful about being angry with your child and disciplining them in a godly manner. Now, if folks cannot discipline without beating their children or verbally abusing them then that shows that are doing nothing but lashing out in the flesh. However, just because a person is angry doesn't mean they are in the flesh.


I'm not saying that a child should never see that they have aroused emotion in others but how are we going to properly teach them to deal with emotion if we don't model it correctly. Saying to the child, "I'm angry. I'm going to cool down and then we will deal with this." This shows them that anger has to be dealt with in a proper manner.

But what I'm failing to see his how it is improper to be angry, yet at the same time demonstrating self control and disciplining your children.


From a Christian perspective, does God discipline us because we have angered Him or does He discipline us because the discipline itself (not His emotion to our disobedience) is what will help us grow.

Is it not possible to discipline your children so that they may grow even while angered by their actions?

Is it not possible to discipline your children so that they may grow even while angered by their actions?


Is it possible.......sure.........do most parents do what you are saying........probably not. That's why the statement don't spank in anger. If we were real truthful with ourselves and truly walking in the Spirit as you describe would we be angered by our children's actions (keeping in mind the age range in which we spank children) or are we going to have compassion for them because of their age or misunderstanding of the situation? Anger often is a result of some other emotion or response. Parents are tired, overwhelmed, kids are tired, lives are busy and these combinations are a set up for children's disobedience and misbehavior and a parent standing next to the camel whose getting ready to take the load of "last straw".

The lack of it when needed is what is wrong, even hateful.

Is it possible.......sure.........do most parents do what you are saying........probably not. That's why the statement don't spank in anger. If we were real truthful with ourselves and truly walking in the Spirit as you describe would we be angered by our children's actions (keeping in mind the age range in which we spank children) or are we going to have compassion for them because of their age or misunderstanding of the situation? Anger often is a result of some other emotion or response. Parents are tired, overwhelmed, kids are tired, lives are busy and these combinations are a set up for children's disobedience and misbehavior and a parent standing next to the camel whose getting ready to take the load of "last straw".

If that were truly the case then God wouldn't have ever been angered. Anger is not a bad emotion. It is just bad when it is in the flesh. However, that can be said of anything. The cool thing about God, and for those who walk by His Spirit, is that He can still be completely loving even though He has been angered. This is why the word does not say, "Do not be angry." The word just says, "Be angry and do not sin."

We can be both loving and angry all at the same time. In fact, if we truly love we will get angry . . . and there is nothing wrong with disciplining in this anger as long as it is done righteously. Now, if someone does not have self control then obviously your points should be applied diligently. Some folks have weaknesses where others do not and so forth.

Vertical, I think you and I have similar views we are just saying it differently.

If one parent spanks is it fair to say the other parent should spant too or doesn't it matter?

Both parents need to be in agreement. And it doesn't hurt for both parents to know how to spank and to be willing to do it. There's no guarantee that one parent will be there for the life of the child. So the other parent needs to know how to discipline too.

Is there some family disagreement with you and your hubby on spanking?

What's wrong with anger, and why should a child not know or understand that certain actions will arouse anger in their parents?

It seems like Christians always say, "Spanking is okay . . . but just not in anger!" I don't know of any scriptures that state it is wrong to either get angry at your children or to discipline while you are angry with them.

A child needs to know he is not being disciplined because of anger. It's OK to discipline while angry if the anger is completely under control. But sometimes, when people are angry they don't take time to explain the reason for the discipline and all the kid knows is "I am being punished because Dad/Mom are angry". Also, anger can cause one to go further than they wish to go. When Israel tested God he got angry but relented. However, there came a time that he swore in his wrath. We need to make sure that we are as patient as God about such things otherwise, we do things in our wrath that we will later regret. Also, anger causes chemicals to to race through our body and we are often ready to fight. As a result, we are more likely to spank harder than we otherwise would.

Since most of us have a hard time with being objective while angry, it's generally better to wait till the anger has passed.

Having said all that, I am convinced that anger is a problem solving emotion. It is given to us by God to motivate us to fix the root cause. Some of us don't use it for that purpose though.

What's wrong with anger, and why should a child not know or understand that certain actions will arouse anger in their parents?

It seems like Christians always say, "Spanking is okay . . . but just not in anger!" I don't know of any scriptures that state it is wrong to either get angry at your children or to discipline while you are angry with them.

It is a sign of wisdom.
As I know from person experience that once someone goes into 'rage mode'
there thinking becomes muddled and self control goes 'bye-bye'.

It becomes WAY too easy to hurt or even *shudder*, someone emotionally ,physically or some combination.

You can express to you children your anger without damaging them in a way that can't be undone (on earth).

Eh, spanking has turned into such a popular fetish for adults that I don't think I could ever bring myself to do it, not knowing for sure what the psychological repercussions might be. I do believe in discipline and it has to be consistent as well as reasonable to fit the crime, but methods such as temporarily being removed from the situation (time outs) or having a privilege revoked have always worked for my little cousins. I'd fear that the child would become afraid of me or would end up hitting others if I were to strike them, even if I wasn't particularly angry about what they'd done and handled the issue calmly. Hitting and biting is such an issue for little children and I wouldn't want to add to it by role modeling. My most frequent punishment as a child was being sent to my room. It wasn't a terrible thing, so I felt no resentment or outrage, nor like I was treated unfairly, but it removed me from the situation that was causing frustration or disobedience to escalate. My parents would come in after I'd calmed down and talk about what I'd done and how it could have been handled differently, so I learned too. At times I lost privileges such as a preferred toy or the phone. I had to earn them back. I suppose some children only respond to physical punishment but most children seem to react well to verbal discussions or gentler methods as long as the parent isn't overly controlling and constantly barking at them every minute. "The rod" for me means consistent discipline, I can't imagine any parent would hit their child with a rod now.

spanking does not seem to be an effective tool of discipline for my daughter. it feels really strange to me to put her in time-out, it almost makes me feel as if i'm being too soft but she does seem to respond to that more. spanking her just seems to make her more defiant. interesting article i found today....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581882,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r6:c0. 000000:b0:z5

Depends on the child.

I needed to be beaten, but all I ever got was spanked.

When that became ineffective, my father started taking my money.

THAT was the ticket to good behavior.

Each child is different. The goal of discipline is to correct, not to punish, so that the child understands the proper action in the future.

And when my parents spanked us, they never left it at that, they talked to us after and made sure we understood why we were spanked and why what we did was wrong. And we were hugged and they tod us they loved us. Kids aren't dumb, if handled right, they will see the reason they were spanked and understand.

Spanking is nothing more than a small part of the learning process for young children.

What is that overall learning process?

Simple.

The meaning of "no" and the understanding of what "minding your parents" means.

Far too many children whose parents forgo spanking have no idea what "no" and "minding" means.

Parents properly applying spanking should do it fairly rarely....because once a child learns what it means when their parents say "no" and really believe it, the need for spankings stop altogether.

Not according to God's word. Look up a study on the rod. Of course it is if it is done in anger-that is abuse.

Not according to God's word. Look up a study on the rod. Of course it is if it is done in anger-that is abuse.

Why is it abuse to spank a child in anger?

Why is it abuse to spank a child in anger?

Because if you spank in anger the chance of you losing control / temper
and doing permanent harm physically, and emotionally
sky rockets.

So much so that it is a 99.9% given that if you do one you will do the other.

Because if you spank in anger the chance of you losing control / temper
and doing permanent harm physically, and emotionally
sky rockets.

So much so that it is a 99.9% given that if you do one you will do the other.

Yeah, I agree when we are angry sometimes our emotions get the best of us and we can lose control and do something we shouldn't do. Parents are human and prone to making mistakes and with children, we need to make sure we do it right and not physically harm them or emotionally do it either in the process. I'm not against spanking, just not a safe thing to do when angry.

Because if you spank in anger the chance of you losing control / temper
and doing permanent harm physically, and emotionally
sky rockets.

So much so that it is a 99.9% given that if you do one you will do the other.

Since when does the chances of something happening equal abuse?

Yeah, I agree when we are angry sometimes our emotions get the best of us and we can lose control and do something we shouldn't do. Parents are human and prone to making mistakes and with children, we need to make sure we do it right and not physically harm them or emotionally do it either in the process. I'm not against spanking, just not a safe thing to do when angry.

If someone is walking in self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit, they should be able to be angry and still not sin.

It seems folks in this thread are trying to state anger = sin, and this is just not true. There is nothing wrong with righteous anger, and there is nothing wrong with disciplining children while angry. What is wrong is disciplining a child while out of control.

well sorry I have been away...it could be child abuse if you spank in anger. And where is anger justified? and why would you discipline in anger anyway? Aren't we supposed to train our children in love? If your angry are you showing your child love or anger? Also the verse you are quoting....be angry and sin not....is usually misquoted. The Greek form of that verse is messed up in English translation. The discipline is not the sin though....obviously you know this. And if someone is walking in self control...they probably wouldn't be angry in the first place.

If someone is walking in self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit, they should be able to be angry and still not sin.

It seems folks in this thread are trying to state anger = sin, and this is just not true. There is nothing wrong with righteous anger, and there is nothing wrong with disciplining children while angry. What is wrong is disciplining a child while out of control.

1) We ALL know that Anger itself is NOT a sin, after all Jesus was VERY ANGRY many times and yet He did not sin.
2) The sin that we are trying to point out is the one of "loss of self-control" which happens to too many people both Christian and non-Christian.
And we can not afford to lose our self control while in charge of a child.
3)

We must take into consideration these verses of scripture.
( all taken from the NASB)

1 Cor 6:12
12)All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.


1 Cor 10:23,24
23) All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 24)Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.


Matt 18:6-10;12-14

6) but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

7) "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

8) "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

9) "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

10) "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

12) "What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?

13) "If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.

14) "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

1Cor 13:1 - 8,13
1) If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

2) If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3) And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

4) Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,

5) does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

6) does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

7) bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8) Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.


13) But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

If someone is walking in self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit, they should be able to be angry and still not sin.

It seems folks in this thread are trying to state anger = sin, and this is just not true. There is nothing wrong with righteous anger, and there is nothing wrong with disciplining children while angry. What is wrong is disciplining a child while out of control.

I think a person should prance right into the room with a slap happy grin on their face and cheerfully in a sing=songy voice anounce its time for a spanking. Just kidding. ;)No kid owuld take them seriously and think it was a joke and would not work. Or the kid owuld have nightmares. :P

No one is saying being angry is a sin, but while a person may be a storng christian, we are still human adn volurnable too at times and being angry can make a person more volurnable so thats why I think its wise to calm down first before doing something becuase sometimes, we can let our emotions get the best of us. Christians are human, we can get carried away. Doesn't matter where they are n their walk, anyone can make a mistake. No one is invincible and anger can get the best of the "best" Christians also.

why should we put our right to feel angry ahead of a child's well being? I'm not saying anger won't be there, just wait until things have calmed down so we don't do something stupid. No one is perfect and why open a door for somethig to happen? I know we ar christians and follow God, but lets not let pride get in teh way. I know christiasn who have gotten carried away adn done something bad. Im not saying that your prideful, just saying that sometimes we forget and sometimes may not realize we have htis "Im a christian, I can do no wrong" mindset. I'm not saying you are guilty of this, just talking in general. If i"m making any sense here.
:)

I still dont' think we are clear. My point here is this . . . if you are angry in a righteous manner you will not need to "calm down." What you all are talking about is a very carnal anger. Just because a person is angry doesn't necessarily mean they need to calm down. Such a state you all are describing doesn't describe someone with self control.

And seriously . . . what are you all suggesting would happen if I didn't step away and "calm down?" Never in my anger have I decided to hall off and punch my kid in the nose. Such a thought would never even cross my mind. If I'm angry will my spanking the child escalate into punching him with a closed fist or something?

And seriously . . . what are you all suggesting would happen if I didn't step away and "calm down?" Never in my anger have I decided to hall off and punch my kid in the nose. Such a thought would never even cross my mind. If I'm angry will my spanking the child escalate into punching him with a closed fist or something?

It can,
We all have at least one temptation to deal with that we must fight regularly regardless of our Spiritual status,
For some it is the temptation to seriously hurting a child / someone that has hurt us,
for others it may be the temptation to 'surrender' to the p* industry.
Or it might be something else.
Many don't just have one temptation, many have many,many more then one.
Many people fight the temptation to be violent in word and/or deed.
I am glad if you have been freed of this temptation,
But realize that for many, especially many men (women can have this temptation also)
this temptation is a daily battle for them.
And we can not afford to put ourselves in a position where
we could stumble, lose the fight and hurt someone with our actions, our words, or both.

It can,
We all have at least one temptation to deal with that we must fight regularly regardless of our Spiritual status,
For some it is the temptation to seriously hurting a child / someone that has hurt us,
for others it may be the temptation to 'surrender' to the p* industry.
Or it might be something else.
Many don't just have one temptation, many have many,many more then one.
Many people fight the temptation to be violent in word and/or deed.
I am glad if you have been freed of this temptation,
But realize that for many, especially many men (women can have this temptation also)
this temptation is a daily battle for them.
And we can not afford to put ourselves in a position where
we could stumble, lose the fight and hurt someone with our actions, our words, or both.

It can only for the carnally minded who are not walking by the fruit of the Spirit. For those walking by the Spirit they can experience anger and yet still not sin. Therefore, walking away or "not disciplining while angry" is not a prerequisite for sound, Christian parenting.

It can only for the carnally minded who are not walking by the fruit of the Spirit. For those walking by the Spirit they can experience anger and yet still not sin. Therefore, walking away or "not disciplining while angry" is not a prerequisite for sound, Christian parenting.

Are christians invincible to temptation, are they perfect? No, anyone can make a mistkae, no matter how strong a relationship they have wiht Christ, anyone can slip. It is possible to not sin, but unless you are perfect, anyone can make a mistake and not follow God at that moment.

Are christians invincible to temptation, are they perfect? No, anyone can make a mistkae, no matter how strong a relationship they have wiht Christ, anyone can slip. It is possible to not sin, but unless you are perfect, anyone can make a mistake and not follow God at that moment.

At Last, Someone GETS IT!

When using any form of discipline, we should remember Ephesians 6:4 which says "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." This can refer to excessive spankings, long time-outs, yelling, etc. If children are provoked to anger, it is the parents fault. Parents can also provoke children to rebellion by being heavy handed.

It can only for the carnally minded who are not walking by the fruit of the Spirit. For those walking by the Spirit they can experience anger and yet still not sin. Therefore, walking away or "not disciplining while angry" is not a prerequisite for sound, Christian parenting.

Anger may not be a sin, but acting out in anger can be - and yes, it's something to be avoided even in non-spanking disciplines. When people talk about not spanking/disciplining in anger, it's not that you can't feel anger, but should be able to control your emotion and act out of a rational intent to teach and correct. Discipline is ultimately about teaching, not punishing. Disciplining in anger will often leave the child feeling hated and unloved, that is not what God wants.

Just because feeling anger is not a sin does not mean it's automatically righteous anger. In fact, I think true righteous anger that should be acted upon is a very rare occurrence, certainly not something that happens every time little Johnny pours his orange juice on the sofa :D.

An example: If a cop pulls one over for speeding, usually they calmly inform you of the infraction, write you a ticket and wish you a good day. I know when I got a ticket (not that this happens a lot, :cool:) I felt shame afterwards and made an effort to slow down from that point on. If the cop had come at me fuming, screaming and berating me out of anger, I might have had a less productive response (ie: I would harbor resentment, might fight the ticket and/or complain about the officer).

This ties in to this verse: "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest the be discouraged." Col 3:21 If anything would provoke a child to anger I imagine reacting in anger to their bad choices would. I speak from experience, my husband tends to sometimes "blow up" (yell) at our daughter (the two are way too much alike), and when he does it becomes a battle of wills and it never ends well. When he reacts calm and rationally she "does her time" and is more successful at avoiding the same misbehavior.

Another example... I'm working on my computer in the middle of something that requires focus and concentration and my daughter throughs me off when she walks up and wants me to look at her latest drawing and starts chatting about random stuff. If I allow my anger to run the show, my impulse is to snap at her in a hurtful way. Anger usually reacts to the child doing something which is irritating or annoying, not to them doing something wrong. That would me be me fulfilling my own selfish need to vent at great detriment to the child. I of course resist reacting that way.

Are christians invincible to temptation, are they perfect? No, anyone can make a mistkae, no matter how strong a relationship they have wiht Christ, anyone can slip. It is possible to not sin, but unless you are perfect, anyone can make a mistake and not follow God at that moment.

That is true for anything. However, we don't make blanket rules for what is acceptable because of the possibility of something happening. I'm not going to tell Christian men that they cannot go out in public because it is possible they could lust after some woman in town. We can't make up rules simply out of the possibility something could happen. Therefore, making blanket statements like, "Spanking your children is fine, but spanking them in anger is wrong," is just not an accurate statement.

I don't believe the distinction between anger and righteous-anger is really being addressed as VR mentioned it. For it seems that it's being assumed that righteous anger is an anger expressed with fuming, berating and screaming (even if the equation was unintentional), whereas it shouldn't be.

I still dont' think we are clear. My point here is this . . . if you are angry in a righteous manner you will not need to "calm down." What you all are talking about is a very carnal anger. Just because a person is angry doesn't necessarily mean they need to calm down. Such a state you all are describing doesn't describe someone with self control.

And seriously . . . what are you all suggesting would happen if I didn't step away and "calm down?" Never in my anger have I decided to hall off and punch my kid in the nose. Such a thought would never even cross my mind. If I'm angry will my spanking the child escalate into punching him with a closed fist or something?

No... but anger might result in a harsher punishment than is necessary unless one is very, very disciplined. If the discipline would be the same if one was angry or not, then what would be the harm in waiting? If the punishment is harsher when one is angry, then there might be much benefit in waiting. On the scale of risk/reward, it weighs heavily towards waiting till one is not angry. Having said that, I can find scripture where God made up his mind when he was angry and took action as a result against his people.

No... but anger might result in a harsher punishment than is necessary unless one is very, very disciplined. If the discipline would be the same if one was angry or not, then what would be the harm in waiting? If the punishment is harsher when one is angry, then there might be much benefit in waiting. On the scale of risk/reward, it weighs heavily towards waiting till one is not angry. Having said that, I can find scripture where God made up his mind when he was angry and took action as a result against his people.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but if the anger is righteous why do we need it to subside? We can have a lasting anger toward the actions of a child without it affecting our love for the child. If my child hurt someone's feelings on purpose, my anger toward that action wouldn't be any different a week from now than it was when it happened. The point I'm making in this thread is that Christians cannot make blanket rules like, "Christians are not supposed to discipline in anger," when the truth of the matter is that disciplining a child in anger is not wrong. Abusing a child is wrong. As long as a person's anger doesn't escalate to abuse toward a child there shouldn't be an issue. In truth, my view of wrong actions are going to be the same regardless of the time the punishment takes place. I still feel like many are viewing anger as a carnal emotion. I think that is a faulty view of anger that has been conditioned in our minds from an early age.

To put it another way, if a person's anger has them in such a state where the discipline is no longer in love . . . they then need to take a step back and examine themselves. Disciplining a child is not intended for us to take out our frustrations. God doesn't discipline us just because we're getting on His nerves and He has an itch He needs to scratch.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but if the anger is righteous why do we need it to subside? We can have a lasting anger toward the actions of a child without it affecting our love for the child. If my child hurt someone's feelings on purpose, my anger toward that action wouldn't be any different a week from now than it was when it happened. The point I'm making in this thread is that Christians cannot make blanket rules like, "Christians are not supposed to discipline in anger," when the truth of the matter is that disciplining a child in anger is not wrong. Abusing a child is wrong. As long as a person's anger doesn't escalate to abuse toward a child there shouldn't be an issue. In truth, my view of wrong actions are going to be the same regardless of the time the punishment takes place. I still feel like many are viewing anger as a carnal emotion. I think that is a faulty view of anger that has been conditioned in our minds from an early age.

To put it another way, if a person's anger has them in such a state where the discipline is no longer in love . . . they then need to take a step back and examine themselves. Disciplining a child is not intended for us to take out our frustrations. God doesn't discipline us just because we're getting on His nerves and He has an itch He needs to scratch.

I hear you and agree with your premise. But since we are not perfect, IMO, it is best to err on the side of caution in such cases. Have you never confused fleshly and righteous anger in the moment?

As for righteous anger not subsiding, I don't agree with that. The action may still make one angry but that doesn't mean we will still be angry with person sitting in front of us. Certainly, God wasn't angry with Israel all the time and eventually got over his anger and forgot the issue. Also, he was slow in getting angry. It took him over 490 years to be moved to deal with Israel concerning the Jubilee year. Righteous anger takes a long time to get going.