To Train Up A Child, by Michael Pearl

ectomorph

Tue, Jan 07 2014, 7:07 pm

Quote:

When is a child too young to spank? The answer is obviously dependent on your definition of the word “spank.”
Some parents practice spanking in a manner that is inappropriate for any child at any age. They strike out in anger and seek to punish the child for the offense the bad behavior has caused them. This is unacceptable at any age, but it is especially egregious when directed at very young and immature children. Spanking at any age should only be administered by those who have a proper philosophy of spanking and are not emotionally-driven. Our booklet Biblical Chastisement thoroughly discusses the philosophy of the biblical rod, but there is an additional point that we must make regarding age-appropriate chastisement.

...

Before we address the issue of age appropriateness, we must make clear the vital principle that proper biblical chastisement, at any age, is not the infliction of pain so as to create a deterrent. It is true that some ten-year-old boys may be forced to obey out of the fear of a painful spanking, but in most cases, they will be motivated more by either their passion to disobey or by a learned desire to obey. Older children (ten and older), like most adults, live more by their own values than they do the fear of police or parents; whereas, young children (under three years old) are not usually intellectually mature enough to remember and calculate the possibility of consequences for their actions. They pretty much live by whim and habit; they are not that calculated and premeditated in their thinking, which is why fear of spanking is not a very good deterrent. Furthermore, obedience rendered out of fear of spanking serves no purpose higher than preventing the child from doing the bad deed again. It does not train and it does not build character. The best child-training manual ever written says, “The rod and reproof give wisdom” (Proverbs 29:15). Reproof is delivered in words. Reproof is designed to impart wisdom and understanding. Reproof corrects the child’s perspective and gives him a reason to obey that is higher than fear. The rod alone may create fear but reproof creates wisdom.
However, just as the small child is not mature enough to remember to associate disobedience with the pain of spanking, neither can he receive the words of reproof, for he does not yet possess a command of the language, nor can he effectively think in terms of philosophy or principles. In short, the small child under three years old is not fully capable of profiting from either punishment or reproof. Are we parents then left without recourse? Of course not! God has provided us with the instrument of training, with very occasional use of corporal chastisement, provided it is not related to punishment.

http://nogreaterjoy.org/articl.....pank/

Barbara

Tue, Jan 07 2014, 7:23 pm

Pearl is a sick sadist who encourages people to hit infants.

Quote:

On p. 34 Michael Pearl relates the story of a mother hitting her 11 month old who doesn’t want to eat any more “spinach-squash-mush” and pushes it away. The mother “picked up her little enforcer (whip), which was lying on the table, and swatted the child’s hand.” When the baby tries again to push the unwanted food away she “received another spat.” Michael Pearl says about this scenario: “I loved it

.

The Pearls describe whipping their own 4 month old baby. They recommend whipping babies who cry. They recommend whipping a seven month old for screaming. Debi Pearl describes hitting a 2 year old so hard “a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside.”

They offer instructions on how to use a switch for hitting children as young as six months, and describe how to use other implements, including a quarter-inch flexible plumbing line. Older children, the Pearls say, should be hit with a belt, wooden spoon or willow switch, hard enough to sting.

Have you ever been beaten with a belt? I have. Let me tell you, it leaves scars that don't have a thing to do with flesh.

At least 3 children have died as a result of their parents following these sick and demented people.

They don't deserve to be quoted. They deserve to be imprisoned.

morah

Tue, Jan 07 2014, 7:43 pm

I was under the impression that this is a JEWISH site. Just because someone quotes Mishlei (and badly, I might add), doesn't mean it has any place with us.

This book advocates abuse, and has been implicated in deaths of children (mostly adopted). Barbara already laid that out. Also, it is rife with xtian hashkafahs that have no place in any Jewish home (or website). They believe that children are inherently sinful and need it beaten out of them. This is not what Judaism believes, we believe in the blank slate concept.

I will also point out another childrearing book that all Jews should avoid: Babywise. Actually, anyone who wants to not starve their baby should avoid it, but even if the concepts they lay out make sense to you, know this: Babywise is actually a secularized version of a book called Growing Kids God's Way- same principlesand hashkafahs, J-man removed to make it more palatable to the masses. Very insidious, and again, has no place in any Jewish setting.

sequoia

Tue, Jan 07 2014, 7:44 pm

More about these psychotic abusers:

Michael Pearl does not allow any of his adult children to get married legally, because some states have legalized gay marriage.

Their daughter, her husband, and their kids were living in a run-down house with no electricity, heat, or food, because the husband had quit his job in order to run a website encouraging abused women to go back to their husbands.

Debi Pearl wrote a book, Created to be a Helpmeet, in which she blamed women for all the sins of the world, said abused wives deserved it, and told women they have no right to divorce their husbands, even if he's a rapist or pedophile.

When Lydia Schatz was beaten to death by adoptive parents who followed the Pearls' methods, Michael Pearl famously laughed.