Featured Justice is served to Abusive Couple

No, I did not read the book and here is why. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on raising kids. Every parent should have common sense.

If you have to read a secular book to raise kids, or you do not have any common sense, then you have no business being a parent.

Everyone learned something from being raised by their own parents. Each man takes a wife to form a new family, and brings to that new family the way he and his wife were raised. You take the best from each world and come up with a new a better way to raise your kids.

The bottom line is, raising kids is the parent's responsibility. It is not the grandparents, a book, the teacher, the preacher, or the church, it is YOU, Mom and Dad. If you cannot discipline them or provide for them on your own, why did you bring them into the world in the first place?

Read a book, you have got to be kidding. Both of my kids have graduated from college and have their own families. We probably were not as harsh as our parents, but that was our collective decision, not a books.

 

I've had enough of your picking and choosing what you think the Scriptures say, and quite frankly thought long and hard about whether I should respond or not. Given the fact you have badly misinterpreted what this passage says, I've chosen to respond.

What do you think he is talking about in stating "passed over sins previously committed"? One has no choice to but to admit that is referencing the sins we committed before becoming believers. Plus, in all your lengthy rejection of my arguments, you utterly fail to relate what the biblical passages I've cited say in reference to the young child from your perspective. You utterly fail to counter my valid point that they are incapable -- and biblically stated as such -- of making a moral decision. Instead, you simply claim I haven't proven my point, but offer nothing to show why I haven't done so, and you continue to return to the book to support your rejection of its contents, and offer nothing biblically or otherwise to support your claims. You seem to want the book passages to stand on their own to "prove" how evil Pearl's work is, when it is obvious you have read things into the text that simply are not there. Again, failing to understand, leaping to conclusions and expecting me to see the same things. While I agree it is not the best of plans by which parents should model their efforts at raising a child, Pearl isn't the "resident evil" you seem to perceive.

I also agree with Saturn, in that the Bible is the best reference we have. There are those, however, who read the Bible and still can't take away its lessons properly, and exterior helps such as Pearl's work give them guidance. Pearl does not believe what you say he believes, and he does not counsel in any way that is harmful to the child. On the other hand, there are better resources. It isn't a book experiencing high-volume sales anyway, so I would suggest you could find something else to get upset and excited about. Now I am done here, and must say I'm deeply disappointed in the outcome of this discussion, given that it is difficult to critique something you don't understand, yet you insisted on doing so anyway. Done, and done.

 

That's a contradictory statement, whether your recognize it as one or not. Anyone can become a believer in Christ, and that includes those who currently are in their sin and without hope. Their sins, too, are being "passed over" as we speak. As for this ...

Not until that latter group of people comes to saving faith are those sins "covered by the blood." They are currently held against them, and will condemn them if they do not repent in faith. But they are not subject to the immediate consequences of their sin, to the fate they deserve, which is death. They go about their business blithely unaware they are under condemnation, and will remain so until they die, or believe, one or the other.

So, obviously you're a Calvinist or you wouldn't include that passage in your arguments. And if you will "go with God on this one," perhaps you'd best stop picking and choosing your passages, but read His whole word, You apparently believe that "the wicked" cannot be won to Christ. But this is utter nonsense.

Isaiah 65, NASB
1 "I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me;
I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me.
I said, 'Here am I, here am I,'
To a nation which did not call on My name.
2 "I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,
Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts, ​

Clearly God is capable of hearing the cries of all men. There are none "specially chosen only for salvation, while the rest of mankind will perish." That is the essential philosophy, or rather the folly and arrogance, of the five-point Calvinist.

To address all your misconceptions about those passages would have taken up far more space than I care to use. These segments of Pearl's book only "make your toes curl" if you utterly fail to understand what he said, and while I don't entirely agree with what he writes, you make him out to be a monster he is not. At one point you wrote:

What a load of malarkey!! There was no "hitting" involved. There were, as he put it, "little spats" on her legs, and it wasn't a "stick," it was a "switch" which he describes as a very thin, leafy branch off a plant. It wouldn't even squish a fly. But you, like so many who oppose corporal punishment, are an alarmist who seems to think what the Bible teaches about discipline "doesn't really mean what it says." The Bible -- and Pearl, for all his flaws -- doesn't teach child abuse.

And you object to the word "conditioning"? That is the essential meaning of the Hebrew chanak from Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go. Even when he is old he will not depart from it."

He's talking about a FIVE-MONTH-OLD INFANT!! Try reasoning with one, if you haven't before. Good grief, Ann, your failure to grasp this whole concept, and most of this discussion, is exasperating, and is indicated by this:

Obedience must come first before any spiritual or intellectual training can be accomplished. You don't even see to realize that, before you could provide godly training to your children, you had to do these things too. You completely fail to realize you did them, though obviously with different methods. That's fine, because as I've repeatedly stated, Pearl's methods are far from the best, but they are not the monstrous plot you are making them out to be. We've wasted far too much time and irritated trillions of electrons unnecessarily in discussing a second-rate book that doesn't even make a blip on the radar among parenting guides, so I'm truly done here, and wish you well and God's blessing. I'm sorry I violated my intent to abandon this thread, but I assure you, I won't do that again.

 

OK, one last time. You are so close to being a denier of what God teaches, it hurts. You seem to think this is child abuse. I can't imagine why else you would call corporal punishment "evil." He isn't advocating beating an infant -- my stars, how many times to I have to say that while you continue to ignore it and its ramifications?

You do realize, do you not, that God Himself endorses the use of the rod, and that the "rod" is little more than a reed or branch? That's the Hebrew definition. You refuse to see how wrong you are. You refuse to see that spanking, "switching", or other forms of corporal punishment are biblically based and God-inspired. He, in fact, promises to use the rod for chastisement of His people.

Job 9, NASB
32 "For He is not a man as I am that I may answer Him,
That we may go to court together.
33 "There is no umpire between us,
Who may lay his hand upon us both.
34 "Let Him remove His rod from me,
And let not dread of Him terrify me.
35 "Then I would speak and not fear Him;
But I am not like that in myself.​

I would caution you to consider what Job is saying here, and not glom onto the word "terrify" as an indication of how the rod made Job feel. Remember in this passage, Job was feeling sorry for himself and lamenting how unfair and aloof God was being. If you believe God was, in fact, those things at that moment, you really don't understand God at all.

Psalm 89
30 "If his sons forsake My law
And do not walk in My judgments,
31 If they violate My statutes
And do not keep My commandments,
32 Then I will punish their transgression with the rod
And their iniquity with stripes.
33 "But I will not break off My lovingkindness from him,
Nor deal falsely in My faithfulness.​

God does indeed use the rod Himself to bring the faithful into repentance and righteousness.

Not a ROD!,
but a rod. In other words, not the iron-fisted punishment you are imagining by a strictly English-language understanding of the verbiage, but a chastisement, which is all Pearl, in all his indelicacy, also writes of in speaking of his "switch" -- the same thing God talks about in the use of the word shebet ("rod") in the above passages. God also endorses the use of this kind of discipline for a child.

Proverbs 13
24 He who withholds his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Proverbs 22
15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Proverbs 23
13 Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
14 You shall strike him with the rod
And rescue his soul from Sheol.

Proverbs 29
15 The rod and reproof give wisdom,
But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.​

Again, not the big, heavy, deadly rod, but a small, unimposing "rod" that doesn't hurt the body so much as it hurts the conscience, and lest you think that is a bad thing (I'm sure you do), I remind you, I've just posted numerous passages from the word of God proving otherwise. Personally, I preferred the flat of my hand, not swung in anger or over a distance of more than three or four inches. As I told you very early on, my kids were not spanked much as toddlers, but they were spanked, and were obedient, godly children who have grown into obedient, godly young adults.

I'm sure you will come back with some nonsense about God not "really meaning to use a rod" to discipline children. Well, take it up with Him, young lady. Your denials are getting quite old.

 

You still insist on equating light taps on the leg with beating!

I have a sign for you ...



Great googly-moogly!

 

I'm gonna ask this again, pointing directly at Ann and ThisNumber, since they've read the book - does Pearl advocate a reward system for correct/acceptable behavior? Or is it purely conditioning/disciplinary?

 

Not in the most remote way possible do you understand. You have just ignored, in twice posting comments whereby you could have availed yourself of the opportunity to respond, no less than a half-dozen Scriptures supporting the use of the "rod" as I've described it, and instead insisted on an earthly, worldly, hysterical understanding. I'm completely done trying to reason with you, as you will simply cling stubbornly to your view without attempting to see anything different, or make any effort -- successful or otherwise -- to refute the biblical basis for corporal punishment and behavior modification.

Why didn't you quote from Pearl's writings in Chapter 5, section 5? Could it be that you haven't actually read it, or perhaps fear it refutes everything you've made claims about?

"They go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies (Psalm 58:3)." The infant, through natural drives for food, cuddling and bodily comfort, soon learns that by falsely representing his need he can gain excessive indulgences. But due to his immature reasoning faculties, God does not count the lie as sin. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)." "Sin is not imputed where there is no law. (Rom. 5:13)." The infant, not knowing "good and evil (Deut. 1:39)," is not held responsible for his lack of conformity to the law. [Emphasis added] Nevertheless, infants do lie. And, children issue forth with a multitude of other selfishly motivated thoughts and acts that will, upon their coming to the "knowledge of good and evil," constitute a "body of sin."

Though they are not now to blame, there will come a time when, through the development of the understanding, the conscience will be awakened, and for these things they will be counted blameworthy. [Emphasis added]​

Or why not quote from the same chapter, section 4?

GOD SPANKS HIS CHILDREN
Those who out of a magnanimous sense of righteousness choose not to use the rod are, by inference, condemning God. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons (Heb. 12:6-8)."

Then it says He chastens us "for our own profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness (Heb. 12:10)." A most profound statement! God does not have any sons who escape chastisement--"all are partakers." And, did He stop loving those whom he chastened? Quite the contrary, love was His motivation for the "spanking." Only through chastisement, could His sons fully partake of His holiness. He does it "for our own profit."

"No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous... (Heb. 12:11)." God's chastisement is a painful "whipping." Our "fathers of the flesh... chastened us after their own pleasure... (12: 9, 10)." The Scripture not only condones physical "scourging," but promotes it as a means to holiness--when ministered for the son's "profit." ​

God loves whom He chastises. The writings of the unknown author of Hebrews are in perfect harmony with the Psalms and Proverbs passages I quoted earlier -- remember? The ones you ignored.

Don't pay any attention to Ann's response. She doesn't understand the book, and even though she claims to use corporal punishment, I'm guessing -- and it is just guessing -- that she actually considers it child abuse. There is no reasoning with her as to what Pearl actually teaches.

Pearl advocates only behavior modification. There is no reward/punishment scenario, and as I've repeatedly said, he doesn't beat infants. She's hysterical about this aspect of his teaching. It is, with her as to this fact, as though I tell her something is black, and she'll insist it isn't, even though it is unmistakably black.

I'll post Deacon's link again.

http://www.quicksilverqueen.com/ttuacbook.html

Read the book for yourself. Determine for yourself whether he is the diabolical torture-master of small children and infants Ann makes him out to be through her selectively limited quotations, or not. Ironically, I don't think he is that good an author, nor do I think his theory is that well-grounded psychologically, or spiritually. I've also told Ann that multiple times. But she insists on misrepresenting Pearl, and while I am not typically a defender of his or anyone like him, I think classifying him as "evil" would be laughable if it wasn't so much unrestrained irrational emotionalism.

 

Glad you finally admitted it. OK, I know you didn't. But this is what I've repeatedly said to you, which you have ignored just as you ignored the passages I quoted in the earlier post from Psalms and Proverbs. You refuse to see what the qualification of the "switch" is earlier in his book. It isn't a tree limb. It's more like a palm frond. He didn't "hit" the child in the crib, but gave it more of a love tap. You choose willful blindness to his descriptions of what kind of "switch", what kind of "hit" he is talking about and insist on overlaying your own wrong, hysterical definition even though repeatedly told you are wrong, told that he defines his terms as being non-abusive, non-violent. Your foolishness is overwhelming.

 

The question is worth repeating. If one is so unsure of themselves, they are reading books about what others think of bringing up kids, except for Holy Scripture, then why on earth would one bring a child into this world?

Parents are the decision maker, parents make the decision about how to raise their own kids. If experience from your own parents, common sense and Scripture is not enough, then that person has no business being a parent.

 

Has Mr. Pearl ever been in the military? He makes some erroneous statements regarding the military; such as Chapter 7: "The military uses real bullets in training the men to avoid enemy fire." No they don't. Unless he's talking about back during WWII or earlier...but especially earlier, bullets aren't cheap and not to be used as if a "plentiful resource."

His phrasing is weird. "...consistently rewarding every transgression with a spanking...." "...rewarded disobedience...." "...consistently rewarding every transgression with a switching...." "...guard against and reward every infraction...."

But then he says this: "A father who is 'there,' always involved in the child's life, will know the heartbeat of his children. If you will praise and reward the desired behavior, there will be very little undesirable behavior."

"Rewards" are gifts. The consistent use of the term "reward" in this writing confuses the meaning of "reward" with "penalize." Following this exact wording, a child will grow to never seek "rewards" because he/she has been conditioned/trained to believe that "rewards" are either (or both) positive AND negative; and all of us seek to avoid such confusion.

Further, Mr. Pearl says this: "As the boys get older, make sure they are not too much confined to studies. By the time they are twelve or thirteen, they should be pretty well through with school and involved in an occupation with you." Do we seriously support this?

Frankly, there are too many things in this writing for me to support it in any way.

 

You're mistaken. The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force still use -- never stopped using -- live fire exercises. In fact, just this year, a live-fire exercise gone wrong killed seven Marines at the Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ercise-kills-at-least-seven-marines-in-nevada

No, of course not. This is among those things which make me uncomfortable with Pearl. However, characterizing him as "evil" is nothing short of bizarre. In fact, that word would be a better descriptive.

You will notice I left out a great deal of what you posted. Primarily it fits into my description of him as "not a good author" and "not sound psychologically or spiritually." Again, my primary concern here has been to prevent him -- and corporal punishment in general -- from being mischaracterized, or allowing hysterics to replace reason.

 

Please re-read the article you posted a link to.

As Ann points out, Mr. Pearl makes the statement that the military uses live ammunition to train the soldiers to avoid enemy fire. This is incorrect. The military uses live ammo targeted at hillsides, empty shacks, boats that have been de-commissioned, even uninhabited islands. But when we trained in "enemy fire" exercises, we used MILES gear, blanks, sometimes wax bullets...but NEVER did we fire live ammo anywhere near each other. To do so was to unnecessarily endanger a valuable military asset.

The link you posted was indicative of Marines firing upon a dummy target. The mortar went off inside the launching tube; this usually happens when the tube is somehow blocked or--more likely--over-heated. They weren't shooting at or being shot at by anyone else.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say our "enemy engagement exercises" had the exact opposite effect of what Mr. Pearl says. Because we used non-lethal means, we got used to the thought that we weren't really going to be hurt...which kind of conditioned us to to actually face enemy fire.