Toto

I can see some value in Proverbs as a springboard to thinking about issues, as long as it is not taken as Holy Writ, as it were. There is a significant amount of child abuse connected with fundamentalists who take the part about the rod seriously and literally.

But does Proverbs have any superiority to, say, Shakespeare? I asked at one point how the Bible is different from Shakespeare to a liberal, non-inerrantist Christian, but never got an answer.

And I think I would respectfully disagree with Peter Kirby's statement:

It has been my experience that a need to see all issues as good vs. evil may complicate a solution to real life problems (for example, take Bush's foreign policy.) People automatically define themselves as good, which leaves them no choice but to cast their opponents as evil, and do to battle to the death with the forces of evil - even if this battle is just the outward manifestation of their inner turmoil.

But there is some great poetry in Proverbs, and I thank Peter for calling attention to it.

And there is this:

Proverbs 9:5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

A precoursor of the eucharist?

YHWHtruth

But parental authority—“the rod of discipline”—should never be abusive. (Proverbs 22:15; 29:15) The Bible cautions parents: “Don’t over-correct your children, or you will take all the heart out of them.” (Colossians 3:21, Phillips) It also acknowledges that physical punishment is usually not the most effective teaching method. Proverbs 17:10 says: “A rebuke works deeper in one having understanding than striking a stupid one a hundred times.” Besides, the Bible recommends preventive discipline. At Deuteronomy 11:19 parents are urged to take advantage of casual moments to instill moral values in their children. See also Deuteronomy 6:6,_7.

The Bible’s timeless advice to parents is clear. Children need consistent and_loving discipline. Practical_experience shows that such counsel really works.

Max

doc58

The following verses clearly show that the term "rod" in proverbs dominantly refers to a physical instrument of discipline or beating.
Note the reference to using the rod on the back.
The church has traditionally had no problem using these verses as justification for spanking. In fact, I heard such a sermon recently. The preacher said that the scripture REQUIRES spanking for disobedience.

Proverbs 10:13
Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgment.


Proverbs 13:24
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.


Proverbs 14:3
A fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them.


Proverbs 22:15
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.


Proverbs 23:13
Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.


Proverbs 23:14
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death. [ 23:14 Hebrew [ Sheol ] ]


Proverbs 26:3
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!


Proverbs 29:15
The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.

Spaz

Of course they have value, there are good parables and bits of wisdom in there. I'd love to have the bible as a book of stories to learn from (Well, not all of the bible ). The only problem is when people have this weird god complex about it all...

BrotherMan

No lie, Peter. Just last night/this morning I was thinking about a thread just like this. Your post is infinitely better than anything I could have come up with, though. Though I do not believe the god of the Bible exists and generally eschew the Bible itself - I can't over look the value that some passages may hold. Specifically, the books that have been mentioned here (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes etc). At the moment, I don't have much more to add.

B. H. Manners

At first glance the Proverbs seem full of true wisdom, however they are very much subjectively referenced by people.

Yes, it says to not spare the rod and in another place to not overpunish, but have you ever heard of anyone being able to objectively and absolutely decide where one proverb applies and where one doesn't to a particular situation? One parent may beat the shit out of a kid and swear he is not violating the proverb about overpunishing a child, and a parent whose child is out being a thug will swear that they did not forsake the "spare the rod" rule.

Please spare me the one about training up a child the way he should go and he won't depart from it. The New Testament and Jehovah's Witnesses claim one can be tought the truth, [edited by moderator], and then go into apostacy-----> a having be trained in the way and departing thereof.


"Jesus Christ performed his miracles by the power of Beelzebub."

Please refrain from name-calling in this forum, thank you. --Celsus

Peter Kirby

Yes, I suggest that 14:15 applies to the book of Proverbs itself, and to the Bible as a whole: only a simple person can accept it all as written. Anyone using their noodle will realize that there are better and worse bits.

There seems to be a consensus here that any form of physical punishment (e.g. spanking) is child abuse. I cannot speak as an authority on the subject but only for myself. There were less than a dozen times as a child that I got the end of a belt to my bottom, where it was clear that it was as a consequence for my actions, and I am none the worse for it.

I don't think that being a non-inerrantist makes one a "liberal" Christian. One can have a conservative theology while allowing for errors in scripture--particularly as a Catholic, where the authority of tradition is placed alongside the Bible and where interpretation of the Bible is the prerogative of the church. Of course, being an errantist is necessary to being liberal, which may be what you meant.

I think it is clear that most Christians, errantists included, do treat the Bible differently than Shakespeare. There are of course those Christians who think that the Bible is just a nice, inspiring story. Even they, however, would say that the Bible's story is the one in which one finds the strongest resonance with one's understanding of God and man, where the biblical text is the foundation of one's mythological worldview. Then there are Christians like C. S. Lewis. Lewis once described the Bible as though it goes from outright fiction, as in Genesis 1-11, to becoming more legendary with the patriarchs, based on history with ancient Israel, and culminating in the non-fictional story of Jesus Christ. According to Lewis, then, one can say that parts of the Bible are literally true, and it is those parts that are important to Christian theology.

Then there is the view of the atheistic literary critic: Shakespeare is different in that it is mostly better than the biblical stories.

What? Of course America is the pure knight doing battle with the Axis of Evil. Actually, Burton Mack has some interesting stuff to say about this towards the end of his book A Myth of Innocence as it relates to the story of the Gospel of Mark.

But if you are going to criticize the book of Proverbs on the grounds of making a clean dichotomy between good and evil, you are going to have to criticize quite a lot of the classic literature and pop culture ever produced--such as, say, Star Wars. And it would be a just criticism, I think, inasmuch as it corrects those who would take it the wrong way. I think, however, that if one does not define oneself as good, but rather takes good as an independent ideal towards which one strives, then one can both accept that there are often tough decisions with no clear answer but also that "I shall do my best."

Cool.

Yes, I would say the fact that bread and wine were staples of ancient dining would make them likely to become the items in the "love feasts" that took place in the evening at the house of a converted patron. I also would say that they sate one's hunger and quench one's thirst, strange concepts to the later Eucharistic ritual.

best,
Peter Kirby