Patriarchy is anti-life.

PaulyWaug

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
Again, no regard for context. This is part of the three servants parable, you do know that Jesus spoke in parables in order to teach a story, right? If I take this literally instead of as you should, a PARABLE, then I'm supposed to go make myself as rich as I can 'cause God will eventually come to collect my money. I must go INVEST, INVEST, INVEST.
You think you have knowledge, but you lack understanding
And I'm still waiting for that famed verse where God said
The history of the christian faith has shown forcible/violent conversion of the pagan peoples that worshiped the Earth, our great mother. This is in direct disobedience of Jesus's teachings. It is interesting that root meaning of matter means mother in latin. The island of Crete, the last vestige of matriarchal power in Europe, also means creation.
 
Last edited:

PaulyWaug

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
14
The issue with the Abrahamic religions is that they have removed the feminine side of the divine (although the recently converted pagans of Europe in the middle ages demanded that Mary be worshiped as a goddess through the catholic faith, which was later eviscerated by the protestant faith) from their beliefs, which created a completely violent and dysfunctional faith and imperialistic tyranny. Jesus tried to revive the teachings of the sacred feminine and he was killed for it. The leadership of women flourished 200 years after his death. He was such a proponent of women, he spoke against divorce based on his empathy for women who would be left to die if their husbands left them in a society in which they had no power. He defended prostitutes desperate for income to feed their families.

And when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them; "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
Who is we?
In my marriage the first 10 years I handled the finances (at least paying the bills) and my wife spent everything else, often spending the bill money before I could pay the bills. It was a constant struggle. Eventually my wife came to the point that she was convicted in her prayer time and felt as though God told her to handle paying the bills, so she could see what I was going through.

It took some faith to agree, but I felt God was in it, so I agreed. There were some rough moments but she learned a lot and gained new respect for the finances. We left it that way for about 5 years before switching back.

We now have two checking accounts. Both of our names are on each of them. One is strictly for bills and saving and the other is grocery and play money. She can spend whatever she wants from the grocery/play account, though now she often takes money out that account and transfers to the bill pay/ saving account because she understands the importance of saving now.

You are confusing authority with leadership.

So when your husband walks in the door your children no longer obey you? I respect your humility in your marriage, and I acknowledge your belief in God ordained authority, but I think you are short changing yourself in the area of leadership.

A good leader in a position of authority, will recognize, acknowledge and nurture the leadership of those that are under their authority.

My wife acknowledges me as the head of our household, but we truly make major decisions on everything together. I never “lord” anything over her.
Of course my children obey me when my husband is around, and if they don’t they get the belt, which puts them back in order.
I really do not feel as if I’m shortchanging myself, I am happy with it this way.
Also, my husband isn’t some kind of tyrannical bully, so it’s not like being submissive to your husband is a weakness on the wife’s part.
He always considers my thoughts & feelings first, but He has final say in matters.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
Don’t blame it on the unbelievers Claire. The church is the epitome of hierarchy top down leadership!
There are many churches, Todd.
Not just one.

Yes, there is Order in a church.

It begins with the Pastor (who, By the way can ONLY be a male). You will never see a female in a pulpit of the church that is a Bible-believing church.

It is strictly forbidden. That isn’t because a woman is not capable of delivering an edifying sermon, it is because the Bible FORBIDS women to Pastor a church.

It must be a male. And it must be a male married to one wife, with obedient children, that ruleth his house well.

God is a God of Order.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Hitting your children with a belt is legally abuse.. i suggest you use an open hand instead - that is legally fine so long as you dont leave a bruise.

Every marriage is different. What works for one doesnt for another.

And there is more to strength then physicality. A strong will gets you further then big biceps.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
The queen goes down in plenty of Chess games. It really depends on your strategy, and play style. For me I think that the Queen should always be in position near the king. If the queen is being moved anywhere it's to smash something, and fall back. This is typically not the role of women though, even in our modern culture.

Losing a queen is devastating. And if you can't tell, I'm no longer talking about a game. Women have a lot of strong traits that we should be supporting, and promoting. Like we should be empowering them to all be queens. Instead there is a lot of unhealthy projections getting thrown around. Where people aren't even pawns, they just feel useless. And unloved.

Pretty sure the Bible doesn't teach how not to love. So what's the real problem? I think a chess player would say that there a lot of unused counter moves. Or underutilized moves. Men and women should both be empowered. Because it's really not that hard to see both sides of the board. They are the same pattern, and same structure every time. If we focus on each other similarities we will always be 100% better for it.
 

Todd

Star
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,525
There are many churches, Todd.
Not just one.

Yes, there is Order in a church.

It begins with the Pastor (who, By the way can ONLY be a male). You will never see a female in a pulpit of the church that is a Bible-believing church.

It is strictly forbidden. That isn’t because a woman is not capable of delivering an edifying sermon, it is because the Bible FORBIDS women to Pastor a church.

It must be a male. And it must be a male married to one wife, with obedient children, that ruleth his house well.

God is a God of Order.
Where are women forbidden to be Pastors? Mind you I don’t think it is wise for a women to pastor a church on her own, but there are many couples in the kingdom of God that Pastor as couples. I believe that is the healthiest and most effective arrangement.
The most important function of pastoring is about nurturing the sheep, not preaching. Why would God forbid females from pastoring when females are usually more gifted in nurturing then men?

Galatians 3:28-29. I thought Paul said in the kingdom of God there is neither male nor female?

Here is the real problem. You believe that the message of the gospel is simply about escape from Hell, instead of looking at the gospel as the good news that we can be free from the power of sin. Salvation is process of gradual freedom from the curse of sin.

The whole concept of a submissive wive begins with Genesis 3:16 where the husband ruling over the wife is part of the curse, due to Adam and Eve disobeying God.

As a Christian you can be free from the curse. It was not God’s original intent for man to rule over women. The purpose of the gospel is to break the curse of sin. Yes escape from punishment in the age to come is a benefit, but the church is supposed to bring the kingdom of God to earth now and break the curse of sin.

Instead of freeing women, the church (in general, not every single congregation) has only kept women under the curse mentioned in Genesis 3:16.

But until the Christians recognize the gospel is so much more then just “escaping hell”, they will never have the faith to break the curse!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
Hitting your children with a belt is legally abuse.. i suggest you use an open hand instead - that is legally fine so long as you dont leave a bruise.

Every marriage is different. What works for one doesnt for another.

And there is more to strength then physicality. A strong will gets you further then big biceps.
Show me the law that says spanking your kids with a belt is “legally abuse”.

I have NEVER bruised or injured any of my children, nor would I.

How many children do you have??

Our discussion about marriage is based on Biblical principles, from a Christian perspective.

Obviously I am aware that many couples view marriage & it’s roles within differently, especially secular couples, who hold very different ideals/approaches regarding marriage, (which is their right) but that was not the subject of this particular discussion.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
Where are women forbidden to be Pastors? Mind you I don’t think it is wise for a women to pastor a church on her own, but there are many couples in the kingdom of God that Pastor as couples. I believe that is the healthiest and most effective arrangement.
The most important function of pastoring is about nurturing the sheep, not preaching. Why would God forbid females from pastoring when females are usually more gifted in nurturing then men?

Galatians 3:28-29. I thought Paul said in the kingdom of God there is neither male nor female?

Here is the real problem. You believe that the message of the gospel is simply about escape from Hell, instead of looking at the gospel as the good news that we can be frees from the power of sin. Salvation is process of gradual freedom from the curse of sin.

The whole concept of a submissive wive begins with Genesis 3:16 where the husband ruling over the wife is part of the curse, due to Adam and Eve disobeying God.

As a Christian you can be free from the curse. It was not Gods original intent for man to rule over women. The purpose of the gospel is to break the curse of sin. Yes escape from punishment in the age to come is a benefit, but the church is supposed to bring the kingdom of God to earth now and break the curse of sin.

Instead of freeing women, the church (in general, not every single congregation) has only kept women under the curse mentioned in Genesis 3:16.

But until the Christians recognize the gospel is so much more then just “escaping hell”, they will never have the faith to break the curse!
1 Timothy 3:
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


1 Timothy 2:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Show me the law that says spanking your kids with a belt is “legally abuse”.

I have NEVER bruised or injured any of my children, nor would I.

How many children do you have??

Our discussion about marriage is based on Biblical principles, from a Christian perspective.

Obviously I am aware that many couples view marriage & it’s roles within differently, especially secular couples, who hold very different ideals/approaches regarding marriage, (which is their right) but that was not the subject of this particular discussion.
2 kids, career as a child protective service investigator. Tell me what state you live in and ill show you either the law or policy which states it. You can spank your kids, open hand no bruise. Hitting them with a belt is not spanking. Im not accusing you of abusing your kids, just a friendly heads up.
 

Todd

Star
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,525
1 Timothy 3:
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1 Corinthians 14:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


1 Timothy 2:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
First a Bishop and a pastor are not the same thing.
Second you will not find any of this ideas confirmed as the word of God outside of Paul’s writing.
As Peter told us, Paul was writing out of his own wisdom. At the time many believers still met at the local synagogue and it was tradition that men and women sat on different sides of synagogue. In general women were not educated even in matters of faith, so it was common for them to not understand what was happening. Paul was simply saying it would be out of order,in that day and tradition, for women to constantly interrupt and ask questions. Do you really equate this as a command from God that women can’t speak in church today? LOL!

Third, do you really believe women are only saved through child bearing? Again LOL!
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
2 kids, career as a child protective service investigator. Tell me what state you live in and ill show you either the law or policy which states it. You can spank your kids, open hand no bruise. Hitting them with a belt is not spanking. Im not accusing you of abusing your kids, just a friendly heads up.
I live in Texas.

And hitting your kids with an open hand CAN injure them or be considered abuse, so can a belt. But they can also BOTH be used to apply proper discipline.

It depends on several factors:

1. Where you spank them (I only spank on their bottom, whether it is a belt or open hand)

2. Age & size of the child - I do not need to use a belt on my 10 yr old daughter, as she is petite & I believe the belt would actually injure her. She typically receives less discipline than my 3 boys because she simply behaves better. A single swat on the behind works sufficiently with her.
Now my 3 teenage boys (17, 16, 15) are a different story.
If I used the same manner of discipline with them, it isn’t going to do anything. All 3 are already taller & bigger than me (I am 5’7, my husband 6’7). They are already 6 ft or taller & outweigh me easily.

3. Temperament of Parent - We never spank our kids when we are angry. That increases the chance of accidentally injuring them & sends the wrong message about how to properly release anger. If we are really upset we wait until we’ve cooled off, so as to maintain composure.

As I said, spankings are given to discipline, not injure.

We aren’t abusing our kids, and I don’t really care what the law says, I will not stop spanking our kids when needed.

The Bible says to spank, so I do.


“Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”....Proverbs 19:18


“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”....Proverbs -13:24
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
First a Bishop and a pastor are not the same thing.
Second you will not find any of this ideas confirmed as the word of God outside of Paul’s writing.
As Peter told us, Paul was writing out of his own wisdom. At the time many believers still met at the local synagogue and it was tradition that men and women sat on different sides of synagogue. In general women were not educated even in matters of faith, so it was common for them to not understand what was happening. Paul was simply saying it would be out of order,in that day and tradition, for women to constantly interrupt and ask questions. Do you really equate this as a command from God that women can’t speak in church today? LOL!

Third, do you really believe women are only saved through child bearing? Again LOL!

Again...you just DON’T believe the Word of God. At least admit it!

I specifically did NOT add my own thoughts and gave you only Scripture.....it is clear that your problem is not about my understanding but with what God says.

And I get that you reject Paul, but it is because you do NOT believe God has preserved His Word as He promised to.

I believe the ENTIRE KJ Holy Bible is inspired by God.

It is obvious you think you know better than God Himself so go create your own world, put it into orbit, populate it & make up whatever rules you wish.

On Planet Todd, you can reign supreme.

But here on earth, all I care about is “THUS SAITH THE LORD”.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
I live in Texas.

And hitting your kids with an open hand CAN injure them or be considered abuse, so can a belt. But they can also BOTH be used to apply proper discipline.

It depends on several factors:

1. Where you spank them (I only spank on their bottom, whether it is a belt or open hand)

2. Age & size of the child - I do not need to use a belt on my 10 yr old daughter, as she is petite & I believe the belt would actually injure her. She typically receives less discipline than my 3 boys because she simply behaves better. A single swat on the behind works sufficiently with her.
Now my 3 teenage boys (17, 16, 15) are a different story.
If I used the same manner of discipline with them, it isn’t going to do anything. All 3 are already taller & bigger than me (I am 5’7, my husband 6’7). They are already 6 ft or taller & outweigh me easily.

3. Temperament of Parent - We never spank our kids when we are angry. That increases the chance of accidentally injuring them & sends the wrong message about how to properly release anger. If we are really upset we wait until we’ve cooled off, so as to maintain composure.

As I said, spankings are given to discipline, not injure.

We aren’t abusing our kids, and I don’t really care what the law says, I will not stop spanking our kids when needed.

The Bible says to spank, so I do.


“Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”....Proverbs 19:18


“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”....Proverbs -13:24
In Texas, the law gives parents, stepparents, grandparents and legal guardians leeway in disciplining their children, but authorities stress that corporal punishment must be "reasonable" and not cross the line into abuse.
"Every case is different, but some things that could constitute abuse would be using something other than your hand, leaving marks or bruises, or hitting in the face," said Marissa Gonzales, a spokeswoman for Child Protective Services.
You should care what the law says, its there to protect children rightfully so. There is no reason to ever hit a child period with some sort of object even more so. If you cant get your children to listen/be respectful without assaulting them you really need to look at that.

The bible did not say thou shalt beat thy kids with belts, and that verse is very much open to interpretation and it is frequently used by the worst child abusers to justufy the harm they cause their kids.

You should thank god your 17 year old son hasnt turned that belt back on you by now.
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
Patriarchy not endorsed by the bible? Delusional. God is consistently referred to as the father and women are ordered to be silent. The Illuminati pyramid/all seeing eye represents the hierarchical nature of patriarchy, with the elite at the top and the poor masses at the bottom. The perfect circle (the original sacred symbol of humanity) represents perfection and equality (i.e. matriarchy). In matriarchy, women do not dominate men as patriarchal men dominate women. This is impossible due to women being physically weaker than men. These men willingly let their women have voices and influence because they know it is best for them. There are few matriarchies left in the world, namely the Hopi Indians and the Mosuo tribe of China. The Mosuo vocabulary lacks words that describe war and r*pe. The Hopi have a radically different view of women than do Christians.

""Schlegel explains why there was female superiority as that the Hopi believed in "life as the highest good ... [with] the female principle ... activated in women and in Mother Earth ... as its source"[11] and that the Hopi "were not in a state of continual war with equally matched neighbors"[12] and "had no standing army"[12] so that "the Hopi lacked the spur to masculine superiority"[12] and, within that, as that women were central to institutions of clan and household and predominated "within the economic and social systems (in contrast to male predominance within the political and ceremonial systems)",[12] the Clan Mother, for example, being empowered to overturn land distribution by men if she felt it was unfair,[11] since there was no "countervailing ... strongly centralized, male-centered political structure"."
That is not what I said.

The matriarchy that you are proposing is led by a false god, just like the existing (supposed) patriarchy, and nowhere in the bible is that endorsed
.

They both are led by false gods-- that was the point, and it is the main reason (but not the only reason) you are wrong. Jesus does not support the worship of false gods, which is the driving force of your pagan worship disguised as reasonable matriarchy.
 

Todd

Star
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,525
Again...you just DON’T believe the Word of God. At least admit it!

I specifically did NOT add my own thoughts and gave you only Scripture.....it is clear that your problem is not about my understanding but with what God says.

And I get that you reject Paul, but it is because you do NOT believe God has preserved His Word as He promised to.

I believe the ENTIRE KJ Holy Bible is inspired by God.

It is obvious you think you know better than God Himself so go create your own world, put it into orbit, populate it & make up whatever rules you wish.

On Planet Todd, you can reign supreme.

But here on earth, all I care about is “THUS SAITH THE LORD”.
I care about thus saith the Lord. But anyone with half a brain can see not every word in the Bible is “thus saith the Lord”

You have made an idol out of the KJV. The word if God is not a book! The Bible is simply a testimony and record of how the Word Of God came to many individuals and manifested through them. Jesus is the the ultimate embodiment of God’s Word.

I have no doubt that Paul experienced the word of God, that he was the greatest evangelist of all Christianity, but that does not make him or his writings infallible. Paul specifically acknowledged three times that his writing was not the word of God. The only time he claimed what he was saying was the Lord is in 1Cor 7:10, where he repeats Jesus’ teaching on divorce.

The only general remark Paul makes about his writings is they are letters from himself to the specific Churches he was writing to. He never said “thus saith the Lord.”

Compare that with Jesus who specifically claimed he spoke nothing but what he heard his father in heaven say. There is no doubt or question about it.

Deuteronomy 13 gives evidence that God would have allowed Paul’s writings to be in the Bible as a test. Anything that leads us to lawlessness is a test from God according to Deuteronomy 13. I don’t think it was Paul’s intention to lead us into lawlessness, but it’s obvious many Christians use Paul’s writing to justify not observing God’s perfect guidance and instruction. God himself said obedience is the evidence that we really love God.

Peter repeats this notion when he warns of those who are lead to destruction by the writings of Paul. Peter is not against Paul, but he is against the lawlessness that results when Paul’s writings are put on a pedestal and made equivalent to the real Word of God, Jesus Christ.

I’m not anti-Paul. I’n not anti-KJV. I’m pro-Jesus, who is the Living Word of God.

Which brings us back to the topic of this thread. Jesus treasured women and they were important part of his ministry. Jesus chose a women to be the very first witness of his resurrection. Jesus spoke against top down hierarchical style of leadership. His disciples were shocked when he ministered too and addresses women directly, and he often referred to women of faith as daughters of Abraham, something unheard of at the time.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
You should care what the law says, its there to protect children rightfully so. There is no reason to ever hit a child period with some sort of object even more so. If you cant get your children to listen/be respectful without assaulting them you really need to look at that.

The bible did not say thou shalt beat thy kids with belts, and that verse is very much open to interpretation and it is frequently used by the worst child abusers to justufy the harm they cause their kids.

You should thank god your 17 year old son hasnt turned that belt back on you by now.
LOL!

Since you didn’t give me actual Texas law ( just CPS drivel) I looked it up myself.

Here is what I found from the website of a Texas Family Law Attorney:

“Spanking is a tried and true method of child discipline used by countless generations of parents wanting to raise their children into healthy and productive adults. It is also a method despised by loony lefties. Many of those loony lefties work for CPS and are responsible for a great deal of nonsense on the subject. One told me that spanking is legal only on the buttocks and with the hand.


First, Texas Family Code (TFC) §261.001(1)(c) defines abuse of a child, in part, as physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, excluding reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm.” This begs the question: is spanking “reasonable discipline”?


For the answer, let’s turn to TFC 151.001(e):

(e) Only the following persons may use corporal punishment for the reasonable discipline of a child:

(1) a parent or grandparent of the child;

(2) a stepparent of the child who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of the child; and

(3) an individual who is a guardian of the child and who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of the child.

So the Texas Family Code specifically confirms that the mere act of spanking is not abuse. The statute was introduced by Representative Howard Dutton, who had heard too many stories of children being snatched from their parents by CPS agents who believed spanking was abuse by definition.

Texas Penal Code §9.61:

(a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:

(1) if the actor is the child’s parent or stepparent or is acting in loco parentis to the child; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare.

(b) For purposes of this section, “in loco parentis” includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or parents.”
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
The bible did not say thou shalt beat thy kids with belts, and that verse is very much open to interpretation and it is frequently used by the worst child abusers to justufy the harm they cause their kids.

You should thank god your 17 year old son hasnt turned that belt back on you by now.
You act as if I beat my kids....Get real.

I have NEVER injured my kids & never will.

They would be the first ones to laugh at your implication.

And, just because YOU think verses leave room for malevolent interpretation does not mean that I do.

Furthermore, my kids are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and are not “bad” kids, (BECAUSE I spank them WHEN NECESSARY, as NO child is perfect & cannot be expected to be) and are quite respectful to ALL adults, not just my husband & I.

The most disturbing thing you’ve said (ESPECIALLY considering your CPS connection) is the last sentence above, which I bolded & highlighted......

you think because I properly discipline my children with spanking that my 17 year old son ought to take the belt from his mother and hit HER with it?!!

So I forwarded your comment to my 17 year old son and his response was, and I quote:

“What?! Why would they say that. You are my mom, I could never hurt you—I love you!”

(Then he asked what’s for dinner & I told him meatloaf, but that is off topic...)

Anyway, perhaps you shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
You act as if I beat my kids....Get real.

I have NEVER injured my kids & never will.

They would be the first ones to laugh at your implication.

And, just because YOU think verses leave room for malevolent interpretation does not mean that I do.

Furthermore, my kids are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and are not “bad” kids, (BECAUSE I spank them WHEN NECESSARY, as NO child is perfect & cannot be expected to be) and are quite respectful to ALL adults, not just my husband & I.

The most disturbing thing you’ve said (ESPECIALLY considering your CPS connection) is the last sentence above, which I bolded & highlighted......

you think because I properly discipline my children with spanking that my 17 year old son ought to take the belt from his mother and hit HER with it?!!

So I forwarded your comment to my 17 year old son and his response was, and I quote:

“What?! Why would they say that. You are my mom, I could never hurt you—I love you!”

(Then he asked what’s for dinner & I told him meatloaf, but that is off topic...)

Anyway, perhaps you shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
You're probably a good, normal parent who loves her kids. If Jess works for cps, she has probably seen the worst the world has to offer, and I'm sure it is more tragic than you or I could imagine. Different worlds. JS
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
1,367
You're probably a good, normal parent who loves her kids. If Jess works for cps, she has probably seen the worst the world has to offer, and I'm sure it is more tragic than you or I could imagine. Different worlds. JS

You’re probably right about that.

There are, unfortunately, some truly wicked people out there. She probably has seen horrific cases of real abuse, and to her credit, I don’t think I could do her job..,.especially cases involving sexual abuse.
I couldn’t sit & interview parents calmly knowing there is evidence of r*pe or torture without attacking them & then probably going to jail myself for assaulting them.
So I am at least thankful that she can, to advocate for the children being abused.

Even if we differ on methods of discipline, I’m thankful there are people like her out there to give otherwise voiceless children a way out of a tragic situation.

No hard feelings Jess.
 
Top