To Train Up A Child
- Thread starter IntoTheVoid
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
There's a petition going around to have it removed from Amazon. The damage may already be done, with so many copies out there, but anyway, here's the link:
http://www.change.org/petitions/ama...which-advocate-the-physical-abuse-of-children
http://www.change.org/petitions/ama...which-advocate-the-physical-abuse-of-children
1
Hmm I see a lot of insinuation, speculation, and negative-emotionalizing goin on, but I see no solid facts or data, as of typing this.
Here's a link to the book on Amazon.com
To Train Up a Child: Michael Pearl, Debi Pearl: 9781892112002: Amazon.com: Books
It was written in 1994, published by No Greater Joy Ministries
So it's a Christian book on parenting from a Christian perspective.
There appears to be negative views of the Christian book.
Do negative views mean said book is automatically negative?
Does anyone have excerpts from the book to substantiate said claims?
Can we go beyond simple insinuation and hearsay?
We shouldn't find it rare that non-Christians would have negative views of a Christian book.
There are over 1200 five star ratings on Amazon.com.
Here's a link to the book on Amazon.com
To Train Up a Child: Michael Pearl, Debi Pearl: 9781892112002: Amazon.com: Books
It was written in 1994, published by No Greater Joy Ministries
So it's a Christian book on parenting from a Christian perspective.
There appears to be negative views of the Christian book.
Do negative views mean said book is automatically negative?
Does anyone have excerpts from the book to substantiate said claims?
Can we go beyond simple insinuation and hearsay?
We shouldn't find it rare that non-Christians would have negative views of a Christian book.
There are over 1200 five star ratings on Amazon.com.
Here's one excerpt:
"Make it a point to never use your hand for spanking … the hand-swatting is a release of the parent’s own frustration. A hand on a diapered bottom is useless as a spanking, but it is effective in causing permanent damage to the spine. There is no surface pain to the child thus whipped. Any pain would be deep inside, similar to a fall or a car wreck. Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain…. For the one-year-old child, a small, 10- to 12-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin), about one-eighth inch in diameter is sufficient … a one-foot ruler, or belt or a three-foot cutting off of a shrub is [also] effective."
Or how about...
"Picture a child of any age who is miserable, complaining, and a bully to other kids…. Fail to use the rod on this child, and you are creating a modern-day “Nazi.” After a short explanation about bad attitudes and the need to love, patiently and calmly apply the rod to his backside. Somehow, after eight or 10 licks, the poison is transformed into gushing love and contentment. The world becomes a beautiful place. A brand-new child emerges."
I'm sorry if my views are negative
"Make it a point to never use your hand for spanking … the hand-swatting is a release of the parent’s own frustration. A hand on a diapered bottom is useless as a spanking, but it is effective in causing permanent damage to the spine. There is no surface pain to the child thus whipped. Any pain would be deep inside, similar to a fall or a car wreck. Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain…. For the one-year-old child, a small, 10- to 12-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin), about one-eighth inch in diameter is sufficient … a one-foot ruler, or belt or a three-foot cutting off of a shrub is [also] effective."
Or how about...
"Picture a child of any age who is miserable, complaining, and a bully to other kids…. Fail to use the rod on this child, and you are creating a modern-day “Nazi.” After a short explanation about bad attitudes and the need to love, patiently and calmly apply the rod to his backside. Somehow, after eight or 10 licks, the poison is transformed into gushing love and contentment. The world becomes a beautiful place. A brand-new child emerges."
I'm sorry if my views are negative
1
No problem with views. It's just good to have some facts to back up said views.
As far as your excepts.
He's against using the hand on, because it can cause perma damage to the spine.
He also instructs not to break the skin.
When applying the rod, he says to do it patiently and calmly.
So he's against spine damage, breaking skin, and doing it in a fit of emotion.
I'd say if he were for those, we'd have a valid charge of him encouraging abuse.
As far as your excepts.
He's against using the hand on, because it can cause perma damage to the spine.
He also instructs not to break the skin.
When applying the rod, he says to do it patiently and calmly.
So he's against spine damage, breaking skin, and doing it in a fit of emotion.
I'd say if he were for those, we'd have a valid charge of him encouraging abuse.
Telling someone to strike a child with any object, regardless of the emotion of the striker is still child abuse.
Maybe you should read the parts about hosing down a child with cold water if he wets himself, or depriving the child of food for 24 hours if he refuses to eat.
But I suppose if the food is withheld in a calm manner then it's ok.
Maybe you should read the parts about hosing down a child with cold water if he wets himself, or depriving the child of food for 24 hours if he refuses to eat.
But I suppose if the food is withheld in a calm manner then it's ok.
R
Im assuming the verse you are speaking of is "Spare the rod, spoil the child". I may be wrong but I understand that verse to be symbolic in nature....the rod representing dicipline not a violent attack on a helpless child. That verse gets thrown around a lot by people I have noticed. I hadn't heard of this book either....I really don't want to read it. It sounds like no one else should be reading it either if they aren't able to discern dicipline from abuse.
Heres a report about the book as well as a link to a downloadable version of the book.
| Death by "chastening rod"
"The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They describe whipping their own 4 month old daughter (p.9). They recommend whipping the bare skin of "every child" (p.2) for "Christians and non-Christians" (p.5) and for "every transgression" (p.1). Parents who don't whip their babies into complete submission are portrayed as indifferent, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are "creating a Nazi" (p.45).
On p.60 they recommend whipping babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them "to get up." On p.61 they recommend whipping a 12 month old girl for crying. On p.79 they recommend whipping a 7 month old for screaming.
On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with. On p.56 Debi Pearl hits a 2 year old so hard "a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside."
On p.44 they say not to let the child's crying while being hit to "cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking." On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is "totally broken."
On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.
On p.46 the Pearls say that if a child does obey before being whipped, whip them anyway. And "if you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher." "Defeat him totally." On p.80 they recommend giving a child having a tantrum "a swift forceful spanking." On the same page they say to whip small children on their bare skin until they stop screaming. "Don't be bullied. Give him more of the same." They say to continue whipping until their crying turns into a "wounded, submissive whimper."
On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including "a belt or larger tree branch" to hit children.
The Pearls recommend pulling a nursing infant's hair (p.7), and describe tripping their non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67). They recommend ignoring an infant's bumped head when he falls to the floor, and ignoring skinned knees (p.86). They also say "if your child is roughed-up by peers, rejoice." (p.81) And on p.103 the Pearls say if children lose their shoes, "let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more."
The Pearls claim their "training" methods are Godly, yet they have no religious training or credentials They never mention Jesus' injunctions to forgive "seventy times seven" and be merciful, and they decry the "extraordinary ingnorance of modern psychology."
| Death by "chastening rod"
"The Pearls recommend whipping infants only a few months old on their bare skin. They describe whipping their own 4 month old daughter (p.9). They recommend whipping the bare skin of "every child" (p.2) for "Christians and non-Christians" (p.5) and for "every transgression" (p.1). Parents who don't whip their babies into complete submission are portrayed as indifferent, lazy, careless and neglectful (p.19) and are "creating a Nazi" (p.45).
On p.60 they recommend whipping babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them "to get up." On p.61 they recommend whipping a 12 month old girl for crying. On p.79 they recommend whipping a 7 month old for screaming.
On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with. On p.56 Debi Pearl hits a 2 year old so hard "a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside."
On p.44 they say not to let the child's crying while being hit to "cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking." On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is "totally broken."
On p.55 the Pearls say a mother should hit her child if he cries for her.
On p.46 the Pearls say that if a child does obey before being whipped, whip them anyway. And "if you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher." "Defeat him totally." On p.80 they recommend giving a child having a tantrum "a swift forceful spanking." On the same page they say to whip small children on their bare skin until they stop screaming. "Don't be bullied. Give him more of the same." They say to continue whipping until their crying turns into a "wounded, submissive whimper."
On p.47 they recommend their various whips, including "a belt or larger tree branch" to hit children.
The Pearls recommend pulling a nursing infant's hair (p.7), and describe tripping their non-swimming toddler so she falls into deep water (p.67). They recommend ignoring an infant's bumped head when he falls to the floor, and ignoring skinned knees (p.86). They also say "if your child is roughed-up by peers, rejoice." (p.81) And on p.103 the Pearls say if children lose their shoes, "let them go without until they (the children) can make the money to buy more."
The Pearls claim their "training" methods are Godly, yet they have no religious training or credentials They never mention Jesus' injunctions to forgive "seventy times seven" and be merciful, and they decry the "extraordinary ingnorance of modern psychology."
1
Interesting report, but the report doesn't give contextual excerpts so we can substantiate said claims.
It's not my burden to read the entire book.
If one is going to make assertions, they should provide easy to verify, easily accessible proof.
One shouldn't make an assertion, hand someone a second hand report, then be like...Oh here read the entire book.
It's not my burden to read the entire book.
If one is going to make assertions, they should provide easy to verify, easily accessible proof.
One shouldn't make an assertion, hand someone a second hand report, then be like...Oh here read the entire book.
I'm not suggesting you read the entire book. Just a quick glance at a mentioned page would have sufficed and would have probably taken less time than it took to write your reply.
What do you want, a photograph of the page? And in what context would any of those practices be acceptable?
Why are you defending this book?
What do you want, a photograph of the page? And in what context would any of those practices be acceptable?
Why are you defending this book?
1
No one is defending.
I am asking for people to substantiate their claims.
Can anyone post the excerpt with surrounding context that mentions hosing down children?
What concerns me is people's ability to believe all of these negative assertions when no contextual clear evidence has been provided.
It's concerning that people believe assertions like this simply because someone appears to post a statement of outrage, then others agree with said outrage, then others validate outrage due to said people agreeing with said outrage.
Yet no one has really provided much contextual evidence to support all of this outrage.
Lead with contextual evidence first, then tag on the outrage if it's proven.
I am asking for people to substantiate their claims.
Can anyone post the excerpt with surrounding context that mentions hosing down children?
What concerns me is people's ability to believe all of these negative assertions when no contextual clear evidence has been provided.
It's concerning that people believe assertions like this simply because someone appears to post a statement of outrage, then others agree with said outrage, then others validate outrage due to said people agreeing with said outrage.
Yet no one has really provided much contextual evidence to support all of this outrage.
Lead with contextual evidence first, then tag on the outrage if it's proven.