I do not understand why this is so hard

The point of the scriptural passages is broadly that discipline and punishment are necessary for, among other things, children - I do not think the precise means of discipline is what they are getting at. If it were, we should definitely beat our children with rods. And fools, too. The textual evidence, if we are to read it that way, is quite unanimous. Few are advocating for that. Then why be wedded to retaining the "inflicting physical pain" part of the passage? We should discipline children, hitting was an extremely common and primary method of discipline until very recently, so hitting (with a rod) is what was mentioned in the text. Hitting with a rod, in fact, seems to be the only method of discipline mentioned in the text - should it be the only method we use? Hitting - perhaps still with rods - was also the primary method of discipline in the patristic period, hence their continued mention of it when discussing discipline for children. I do not expect to go back in time and lecture St Augustine about this. But this seems to explain why hitting with rods is mentioned - not because it is the best and only way or that this specific method is mandatory, but that it was the most common way to discipline at that time (it is still widely practiced now - perhaps not as frequently with the rod, though) and - for whatever reason - they wanted to talk about discipline. But if we are going to read the injunction to discipline as requiring some use of corporal punishment, we have to go back to the plain meaning: hitting them with rods, staffs, etc, and doing so in a manner that, in modern times, may be viewed as abusive.

However, if the point is chastening and correcting the children or fools, perhaps we should instead use the most effective means of doing so. Research (here we go again) suggests that corporal punishment is not more effective than other methods and has worse side effects. "Abuse" is universally condemned. So what is wrong with this reading?

It seems some Orthodox Christians...

...really like the idea of hitting children. In case you are wondering, the recommendations of those who study that matter are pretty much universally against it. And by "it", I would note that they are specifically discussing corporal punishment, such as spanking, and specifically excluding "abuse". Here is a "popular" article on the subject: Spanking is bad for all kids I have previously shared a scholarly article, but it is dense. If you want to read that, it is titled "Spanking and Child Development: We Know Enough Now to Stop Hitting Our Children," by Elizabeth Gershoff. It is a literature review.

EDIT: the article I previously recommended was a 2010 review article, the one listed above is a 2013 review article. The 2010 was directed at policy makers in a law journal, the latter is a traditional lit review that appears to be in a peer-reviewed journal (correct me if wrong). Different audiences, also one is newer, so more cutting edge. Same conclusion: hitting kids doesn't work well, don't do it.

A new web-log you may find interesting

A friend of mine has started a new web-log, Departing Horeb, which will be about Orthodox theology as informed by Biblical scholarship and the history of the ancient Near East. The name comes from the incident when, after the revelation of the glory of God to all of Israel at Horeb (Sinai), they are commanded to go into the wilderness. This is representative of the spiritual life - we are shown God, and then we enter a long, hard journey with little to comfort us. It is hard to leave Horeb, but necessary. As the name suggests, he is willing to tackle the hard questions that you run into in the wilderness and will have little of that damnable "certainty" people often claim to have. The first bit of actual content is also about a subject which I have been interested in: the biblical commands to beat your children with a stick.

A certain segment of the population would be scandalized.

A certain Christian leader has a more complicated relationship with God than simple 100% certainty 100% of the time.

I find it refreshing that the leader of some large Christian group is willing to discuss openly the interplay of doubt and faith for a modern audience, since I am quite certain that it was not problematic to have this sort of posture in the distant past (it would be expressed somewhat differently), but in the modern era any sort of intellectual questioning in some circles became completely subversive and was repressed. In many corners of Christendom, this leads to an official fideism with a large number of, say, teenagers running off to college to find that the pat religious instructions about faith which do not admit any sort of "doubt" cause them to abandon God because they can't stop the questions. And questions mean you are doubting, so you have no faith. This is an unfortunate conclusion. But uncertainty is scary and it takes quite a lot of courage to admit uncertainty and unknow what you know. It is terra incognita. But the sane people have learned to deal with it. But there are no easy answers.

Or maybe the world began 7522 years ago and we do have all the answers. The real problem of doubt is how do we crucify the mind so that we ignore everything that appears to be true about the world. Answer: faith!

What is the Orthodox stance on beating your children?

On the one hand, the Bible commands us to do so (with a stick!). Further, it is legal in these United States. Therefore, it is a very popular option for American Christian Conservatives and therefore for many Orthodox Christians as well. I suspect most "spare the rod", but I think many would be surprised at how often implements gets used. One proponent of the "beating your children" camp is popular internet commentator Fr John Whiteford. He ably makes the scriptural case (and includes patristic references) for hitting your children, perhaps with sticks, when they misbehave. It is not only a permissible option in this view, but a mandatory one.

On the other hand, all the research indicates that beating your children has bad outcomes in the long run and in the short run doesn't do better than other effective methods of discipline. It further teaches children that hitting people is an appropriate way of getting things in order. For more on the research, see this article (note: it's a review article in a law journal by a scientist, not a science article, but it seems to be a fair summary of the research). In short, it doesn't work as well as other forms of discipline as discipline and it has bad side effects.

I'm not saying you are a bad parent if you beat your children (perhaps with a stick). I'm suggesting that you should reconsider your methods in light of the damage you are causing, despite what some appear to think the Church teaches about the proper way to discipline your child (ie with a stick).

"Why Evangelicals are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience'

Karl Giberson has written a fantastic article about the Discovery Institute and their unabashed promotion of pseudoscience outside of their claimed expertise.

Here is the intro:

Widespread rejection of human-induced climate change by evangelical Christians, of the sort we have seen recently from Rick Perry and others, is a bit of a puzzler. There is no obvious reason why evangelical faith commitments should motivate the faithful to reject climate science. The Bible does not claim that humans cannot affect the climate. God did not promise that the atmosphere will forever be healthy and life-sustaining. No end-time scenarios suggest that Jesus will come back before humans trash the planet.

So why have evangelicals been so ready to reject the generally accepted conclusions of the scientific community on global warming?

I want to suggest that the reason has nothing to do with climate science per se, but derives from the generally dim view that many evangelicals have of science and scientists -- views that make it hard to distinguish credible science from fake challengers.

This is why I am now so hostile to the Discovery Institute. Not because I read a bit more about Intelligent Design and made the decision that it is bunk (though it probably is), but rather because they're promoting other nonsense and this leads people to accept that other nonsense. Climate change is happening and humans are largely responsible. If they are preventing people from seeing that, they are doing something bad. Know them by their fruits.