Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[2xx1xy1JD]

I have not ignored, I just don't like repeating myself. Child training is an important aspect of protecting our children from danger. A child will learn not to touch a hot stove only after they are burned. As parents, we protect them from that danger by swatting their hand to learn not to try to touch the hot stove because we say so. A child who is too little to climb the stairs doesn't understand that falling down them could result in their death. As a good parent, we have to teach them to stay off of the stairs to protect them from danger that they are not aware of.

Swatting the leg of the baby was not a punishment for disobeying them, it was an attempt to gain the child's compliance by training them that when mom and dad say "no" they mean business. It is a great danger for the child to climb the stairs. Just like swatting the hand reaching for the hot stove, it is not out of anger or punishment, but training and protection.

The child learned that no, meant no. A slight swat on the leg is no worse than a swat on the hand. Neither done for punishment, none out of anger, and it is simply training the child to stay away from danger not out of experiencing the burn or fall down the stairs, but because mom and dad say no. Simple parenting 101, practiced by every parent in the world for thousands of years. Only yuppies and people with too much time on their hands take issue with it.

Um, no. Keeping your child safe until they are conditioned to avoid dangerous situations or mature enough to understand safety is an important aspect of protecting our children from danger.

As I've said before - developmentally-normal adults do not stick pins bobby pins into electrical sockets, bump heads while jumping off furniture, burn hands by touching a hot stove, strangle themselves on blind cords,, etc. The toddler phase is hazardous, but kids grow out of it - with or without spanking.

Morever, the "training" referred to in the biblical line "train up a child" or "chanoch l'naar b'darko" refers to the earliest sort of learning done by children, in the way that the child themselves learns best. [The actual Hebrew word is not that a child should be trained in THE way, but in HIS (the child's) way.] We know that the brain of a toddler does not work in the same way as the brain of an adult. Adults learn verbally. Very young children learn through constant repetition and routines. This is why they will listen to Barney or watch the same Dora episode 57 times in a row. While this can be annoying, it also means that it is fairly easy to use repetition and routine to "program" a very young child. At daycares, you can see staff sing "tidy up time" at the end of an activity, and the tots will start to clean up. You can have a rule like "hold hands outside the apartment", and a tot will be trained to do this (as we did with baby #1 since we were living on a busy downtown street). You don't need to break their will in order to do this - at this age, they actually LOVE rules and routines.

[Kitty]

But that still doesn't explain why the Pearls warn against striking a child who cannot understand, but then turn around and tell readers to do just that.

Of course, many of the mothers here managed to get their kids to stop hitting others without spanking. You do not need to hit in order to teach a child that 'no' means 'no.' There are other ways to do that.

Also, guess what your methods actually do? That's right, they in fact associate the spanking with disobedience. The child only learns to obey the word 'no' not because he or she really understands, but fears the pain. And that's completely missing the point of raising a child.

[Paisy]

That is why we are told in the bible to spank, we are told to instruct, we are told to train, we are told to teach, exhort lead, love, etc. And God is our best example (if you are a Christian.)

And what if you are not a Christian?

[Witsec1]

Choleric, no one is accusing every one who uses Pearl methods of torturing their children. It is always a toxic method that causes more problems than it solves, but it does not lead to torture in all cases.

The deaths happen when parents follow Pearl's advice to the letter in cases where it should never be applied. Since Pearl is actually uneducated and ignorant about human development, he fails to describe the circumstances when parents should seek help. He fails to set limits and encourage parents to seek other help when his method fails. He insists his method is the only Biblical one, and that parents who fail to use it are failing their children (guilt, manipulation, fear) Basically it is a chaining Dunning-Kruger effect (being unaware of one's own incompetence. Michael Pearl is unaware of his own incompentence in the area of child psychology/development, esp. kids with PTSD/attachment issues. This leads to parents who follow him remaining unaware of their incompetence. Good parents can be manipulated by fear and guilt to then torture their children, and toxic, empathy-deficient parents are given permission to torture by his writings.

[choleric]

Choleric:

Have you ever seen "Supersize Me"? The "use as directed, fine in moderation" argument breaks down when you see that some stuff (like eating McDonalds all the time) clearly causes harm, while other stuff (like eating Subway sandwiches without mayo and with veggies) causes you to lose weight like Jared, if you do it a lot.

Same here.

Causing physical pain to children obviously has the ability to cause harm, as we have seen.

I have not seen it, but i get the correlation. I understand some parents are not capable of properly spanking. But that doesn't mean that spanking is bad. That is a giant leap of deduction.

I don't think you have any idea what positive parenting is about, because it is certainly not "time-out is the ideal response to everything".

Here's a some key aspects of positive parenting that we use, that CAN'T really be overused to the point of harm:

- striving to be the sort of people that we would want our children to become

Amen. And hypocrisy is the fastest way to get your children to abandon you and your values. On this we agree. As parents, we cannot ask our children to behave in ways we do not. And while I don't know if you are relating this to the book, this is a concept clearly laid out in there as well. All effective parenting ends and begins with our example.

- having consistent and logical rules

Again, we agree. Consistency is key and our kids should know what is expected of them. We cannot hold them accountable for things we have not taught them and we should be consistent.

- always speaking to others with respect

- always showing children that they have unconditional love even if we do not always like everything that they do

- feeding hungry children and getting cranky kids to sleep, instead of getting having them pitch a tantrum

- not giving in to a tantrum

Amen amen amen

- feeding kids healthy, nutritious foods and ensuring proper sleep and appropriate exercise

- have positive instead of negative expectations for our children (eg. "You can be a really great person, volunteer your time and give money to good causes, have the courage to do the right thing, go well in school and get a great career, take your time to find a great partner with good values who truly loves you and will be committed to your family" vs. "I don't want you to keep being so disrespectful, because you'll be no good, get caught up with a gang and land your ass in jail, flunk out, end up as a bum on welfare, be a slut and get knocked up".)

Totally agree. We try to feed fresh vegatables and our kids eat fruit just about every day. We grow what we can and buy nothing but the best for the rest. When my kids are mean to their siblings, I will say "you are a sweet girl, why do you act that way? That is ugly and you aren't ugly, you are sweet and you love your sister." This always gets a positive reaction and my wife and I constantly shower our kids with affection and love.

- make time to genuine listen to our children, with full attention

- walk up to children when something needs to be corrected instead of yelling from a distance

- immediately removing an object that is being misused

Relationships is one of the legs effective parenting is built on. Without it, we will only make our children bitter, hateful and angry and they will be ready to leave the nest at the first opportunity. On this we agree.

I would point out that just because spanking is one arrow in my parenting quiver, it does not mean that I don't know how to use positive reinforcement or that my kids are constantly under the threat of a spanking. My wife and I made the determination that we would not constantly say "you're gonna get a spanking if you do that" etc. We love them, teach them and very rarely, spank them. And when we do, it is done calmly, never out of anger and always preceded and followed by talking to them on their level about their behavior. We are not wicked parents because we spank, and a person who writes a book on child training that includes spanking is likewise not a wicked person. If you don't want to spank, then fine. You will never find me on a website calling you or the people who believe in such parenting wicked, evil people for disobeying God's teaching on the subject. It is just infuriating when I find sites like this that go out of their way to call people they disagree with "wicked, evil people who should be investigated". It is just absurd.

[choleric]

And what if you are not a Christian?

Then you have bigger issues.

[formergothardite]

Oh my, I am not sure how to explain this to you. Do you speak another language as your primary language (I am not being smart, just wondering). The issue is training a child to listen/obey, not spanking them for the wrong behavior. Waiting until a 8 month old hits their sister and spanking them for hitting is not going to work as the child is too young to relate the spanking. You do not wait for the child to touch the stove then spank for disobedience as the child will not associate the spanking with the disobedience. You cannot teach a baby to comply by spanking.

What you can do, is train them that no means no. You cause them to understand that when Mom says no, she is serious. The baby learns to associate the sting on the leg with the command "NO" and from that point forward the child will take the command "NO" seriously.

Do you understand the difference? One is punishment for bad behavior. The other is training to obey a command to prevent harmful behavior.

No I don't. Please explain exactly how hitting a child of any age with a willow branch is not spanking them.

[Austin]

This "person" brings to mind Emerson's well-known words, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. . ." He definitely qualifies. He is so intent on defending something he clearly knows is wrong because he's invested so much into it he can't possibly backpeddle now. So he thinks.

Listen, jerk, don't tell us, "Good luck with that" when referring to our children. Many of us, including me, have raised children to adulthood with success without hitting them. So thanks for the "good luck", but we didn't need luck, or even perfection, just decency and humanity.

It's regrettable that you are so lazy that you can't figure out a more constructive way to deal with your children, and I feel sorry for your kids, but that's really what it boils down to. I realize it's much easier to pull out a switch or a piece of plumbing line and whack your kid than to actually communicate with and teach your child.

[desertvixen]

I would love to know how you define "break the child's will". It is obvious you view it as something very 'sinister' and 'evil' yet it is something every single parent has done with their children and is a necessary part of effective child training.

I would say every single parent has gotten their child to do what they wanted tme to do. To me (and I suspect, to a lot of other people here on FJ), that is not "breaking the child's will". "Breaking the child's will" has more of a permanent connotation, as in "breaking a horse" or even "housebreaking". My five year old minds me (and sometimes doesn't) because she understands that there are consequences to her behavior, both positive and negative.

[Witsec1]

I'm not sure why you think everyone here thinks anyone who uses Pearl methods should be investigated and prosecuted. I wish they would stop, but I don't want them all prosecuted. I think those who manage to parent well do so in spite of, rather than because of, his advice. I think there are many, many red flags in his writings that have the power to cause a fatal, toxic reaction in certain situations. Pearl has been made aware of the problems with these deaths, yet he does nothing to correct or tone down the problematic instructions.

[Paisy]

Then you have bigger issues.

I think I have a whole lot less, actually!

[Paisy]

No I don't. Please explain exactly how hitting a child of any age with a willow branch is not spanking them.

In my opinion it is not spanking them; it's beating them.

[Austin]

I'm not sure why you think everyone here thinks anyone who uses Pearl methods should be investigated and prosecuted. I wish they would stop, but I don't want them all prosecuted. I think those who manage to parent well do so in spite of, rather than because of, his advice. I think there are many, many red flags in his writings that have the power to cause a fatal, toxic reaction in certain situations. Pearl has been made aware of the problems with these deaths, yet he does nothing to correct or tone down the problematic instructions.

I don't think all Pearl-following parents should be investigated, either. I'm sure many have strong enough maternal/paternal instincts that serve to override Michael Pearl's advice and they don't actually torture their children.

I think these parents may not know what else to do because their religion teaches them that if they don't beat their children, they hate them. They are truly afraid that if they don't hit them, the children will go to hell.

These parents need education and to be shown successful alternatives for discipline.

[Paisy]

I'm not sure why you think everyone here thinks anyone who uses Pearl methods should be investigated and prosecuted. I wish they would stop, but I don't want them all prosecuted. I think those who manage to parent well do so in spite of, rather than because of, his advice. I think there are many, many red flags in his writings that have the power to cause a fatal, toxic reaction in certain situations. Pearl has been made aware of the problems with these deaths, yet he does nothing to correct or tone down the problematic instructions.

While I don't think parents who choose to spank should be investigated for child abuse, it's hard for me to consider beating an infant with a switch to not be child abuse. It just is. I can't even go so far as to say that the crime is in that Pearls' advice is misused, because although it is misused and sometimes not used as "intended," even taken to the letter some of what they advocate is abuse. I think it's that kind of thing that most are up in arms about.

[choleric]

Choleric, no one is accusing every one who uses Pearl methods of torturing their children. It is always a toxic method that causes more problems than it solves, but it does not lead to torture in all cases.

This one thread is full of people saying parents who spank are "beating" their children. My only issue is calling me wicked for spanking, or blaming Pearl for the book as it relates to the deaths of those kids.

The deaths happen when parents follow Pearl's advice to the letter in cases where it should never be applied. Since Pearl is actually uneducated and ignorant about human development, he fails to describe the circumstances when parents should seek help. He fails to set limits and encourage parents to seek other help when his method fails. He insists his method is the only Biblical one, and that parents who fail to use it are failing their children (guilt, manipulation, fear) Basically it is a chaining Dunning-Kruger effect (being unaware of one's own incompetence. Michael Pearl is unaware of his own incompentence in the area of child psychology/development, esp. kids with PTSD/attachment issues. This leads to parents who follow him remaining unaware of their incompetence. Good parents can be manipulated by fear and guilt to then torture their children, and toxic, empathy-deficient parents are given permission to torture by his writings.

While I understand your point, I would disagree. The idea that the only people that can be experts in child training are those that have been given a degree from some university is an idea that has only been around for a couple hundred years at best. To say that no person has been worthy of child training until a degree program was formed for it is simply silly. If you are a Christian, then you would agree that it is God who gives wisdom. A man who has devoted his life to helping others, who loves the Lord, has raised 5 healthy children, is more qualified than some secular humanist with a degree and an atheistic worldview.

Again, if you want to claim the book is not perfect, then that is one thing. To claim it is responsible for some child's death is a leap of grand canyon proportions. Many parents who spank incessantly are missing one or more of the other important aspects of effective child training such as the relationship and an atmosphere of love and respect, both of which are laid out in great detail in the book as well as his other material. Only a cold, heartless person could kill their own child. This is not the Pearls fault. It simply isn't.

[Brainsample]

If you are a parent who has had any success, then you have broken your son's will.

You haven't broken their will. You've conditioned them to be compliant. The problem is that they will be compliant with anyone. They will be a prime target for manipulation and for exploitation by every huckster and sociopath and fast talking evangelist on the planet.

You demand more of children than God requires of adults. Jesus doesn't shame us or force us to do anything. The Spirit does not punish us but guides us. We are not Spirit-controlled but are Spirit-led. We have the choice to obey or to disobey. God gives that to us. He doesn't break our will but restores us. The Spirit of God in us works in us and convicts us out of love, but it does not turn love into cold duty and pain. The Spirit is not an authoritarian, angry tyrant. The image we are given is that of a dove, a gentle creature. But it all depends on your concept of who God is. I understand Him as all powerful and I am in woeful awe, but I also know that He is not heavy handed, either. That is the arm of flesh and the wrath of man which doesn't work the righteousness of God.

These patterns of childhood will inevitably then be adopted by their victims and used on their partners and their own children, at work, in politics, wherever the fear and anxiety of the profoundly insecure child can be fended off with the aid of external power. It is in this way that dictators are born; these are people with a deep-seated contempt for everyone else, people who were never respected as children and thus do their utmost to earn that respect at a later stage with the assistance of the gigantic power they have built up around them. (pg 28)

Excerpt from Alice Miller's The Body Never Lies: The Lingering Effects of Hurtful Parenting, WW Norton, New York, NY (2004)

What these authoritarian religious systems are all about are fear and control.

Rigid, intolerant authoritarians operate by maintaining control of their environment. Why? Because they have so little internal sense of calm and self-control. It has to come from outside of themselves and they are only calm and self-controlled in environments that are calm and controlled.

I'm not talking about a child who is about to put their hand on a hot stove or run out into the street. I'm talking about the intolerance of anything that the parent finds troubling, including the crying of infants. Here is Debi, contradicting her own principles about never spanking an infant. If they do not believe this, why is it in the book?

Pg 79:

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down damnation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

Pg 65, about a 15 month old that Debi is babysitting:

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

But I digress.

People who demand this level of control from children have a diminished ability to tolerate frustration themselves, a manifestation of their own lack of self-control. So how do they get control back? They control others, and they use their aggression to do it if necessary, though they believe that they've smeared it and covered it in love. They demand perfection of their children and a level of self-control of the children that they do not even possess themselves.

They cannot tolerate their own frustration, so they chronically vent it on the children under the guise of loving discipline. This is what I believe that Pearl advocates: Chronic use of corporal punishment as the first and most effective measure for changing behavior, and it just happens to be the most convenient measure for the parent. If the child does not possess the necessary ability to control, they force it through punishment. This does not teach self-control. It destroys critical thinking, decision making and healthy, ethical discernment. It teaches that might makes right. So the next person of power that walks into that child's life will be right because of power, not because the child has recognized anything, save the ability to survive through feigned behavior. You cannot beat goodness into a child, and you cannot beat human nature out of a child, either.

[Brainsample]

From page 195 of Miller's "The Truth Will Set You Free"

The figure of Jesus confounds all those principles of poisonous pedagogy… Long before his birth Jesus received the greatest reverence, love and protection from his parents… His earthly parents saw themselves as his servants… Would it not make eminent sense to encourage believers to follow the example of Mary and Joseph and regard their children as the children of God (which in a sense they are)?

[T]he members of the upcoming generations will have the courage to call evil by its name…It is high time to relinquish the destructive models and to mistrust the principle of obedience. We have no need of docile children brainwashed by their upbringing to be ideal targets of seduction by terrorists and lunatic ideologists, ready to fall in with their commands even to the extent of killing others. Children given the respect they deserve from their earliest years will go through life with open eyes and ears, prepared to fight injustice, stupidity, and ignorance with arguments and constructive action. Jesus did this at the age of twelve, and the scene in the temple (Luke 2:41-52) demonstrates eloquently that, if need be, he could refuse the obedience his parents asked of him without hurting their feelings.

With the best will in the world we cannot truly emulate the example of Jesus. None of us were carried by our mothers as the child of God; indeed, for far too many parents, children are merely a burden. What we can do, provided we really want to, is learn from the attitude displayed by Joseph and Mary. They did not demand docility from their son, and they felt no urge to inflict violence on him. Only if we fear the confrontation with our own histories will we need to have power over others and cling to it with all our might. And if we do that it is because we feel too weak to be true to ourselves and our own feelings. But being honest to our children will make us strong. In order to tell the truth we do not need to have power over others. Power is something we only need in order to spread lies and hypocrisy, to mouth empty words and pretend they are true.

[choleric]

I would say every single parent has gotten their child to do what they wanted tme to do. To me (and I suspect, to a lot of other people here on FJ), that is not "breaking the child's will". "Breaking the child's will" has more of a permanent connotation, as in "breaking a horse" or even "housebreaking". My five year old minds me (and sometimes doesn't) because she understands that there are consequences to her behavior, both positive and negative.

Breaking a child's will is nothing more that getting the child to lay down their will in favor of yours. It is getting them to stop throwing a temper tantrum in the store because they aren't going to get the candy and then seeing them walk joyfully through the store while you shop. Whatever method you use to get the child from the tantrum to the joy is breaking their will. Breaking the child's will is gaining compliance, hopefully (but not in every instance) with joy. You don't have to spank to break their will, and every parent on earth has done it.

[Austin]

While I understand your point, I would disagree. The idea that the only people that can be experts in child training are those that have been given a degree from some university is an idea that has only been around for a couple hundred years at best. To say that no person has been worthy of child training until a degree program was formed for it is simply silly. If you are a Christian, then you would agree that it is God who gives wisdom. A man who has devoted his life to helping others, who loves the Lord, has raised 5 healthy children, is more qualified than some secular humanist with a degree and an atheistic worldview.

Are you really going to come here and claim the Pearls' adult children are all happy, healthy, and well-adjusted? :?: :shock:

edited to add quote

[Brainsample]

Doesn't this sound like Michael Pearl?

They NEVER admit to wrongdoing, and when consequences force them to realize that they have failed to be perfect, they will become even more dramatic, emotional, and aggressive. Life is all about blaming other people for their shortcomings, because they are really just terrified inside. Like playground bullies, they don’t take well to open confrontation. Direct confrontation usually becomes explosive, as the narcissist prefers to be passive-aggressive because they actually fear confrontation. That makes them hard to understand, because on the exterior, they seem to seek out conflict and aggression. Considering their inner experience of helplessness and fear seems oxymoronic (if not impossible) when you are on the receiving end of their wrath and if you believe their exaggerated perceptions of themselves.

Narcissists also demonstrate an emotional aloofness, and they can come across as cold and exacting. They are not in touch with their real emotions. (Their inner world is a war effort against true feelings and a desperate flight from emotional discomfort.) Their flattened emotions concerning some matters manifests as a function of their flattened empathy. Trying to negotiate a healthy relationship with a narcissist is very difficult because they do not listen to others (and cannot listen to some extent). Conflicts are usually seen as all-or-nothing challenges wherein there is an absolute victor and a shamed loser. They tend not to comprehend “win-win†situations wherein both parties in a conflict can arrive at mutually equitable solutions or agreements. Every game is a zero-sum game. If they perceive that their opponent in a conflict has any sense or position of personal power, because of their fragile sense of self inside, they believe that they have no power. Power, truth, happiness, and things like fulfillment seem like “finite resources†to them. In their minds, there isn’t enough power to go around for everyone.

Power is finite which is why Pearl demands that parents have ALL of it. Everything is a zero-sum game. Children should have no power, and it should be taken from them through breaking them.

(I wrote this as part of a blog post: http://botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com/2010 ... hared.html)

[Witsec1]

I never said Michael Pearl's incompetence was due to him not having an advanced degree. My mother does not have an advanced degree, and she knows more about child development and child pyschology than Michael Pearl. This is from having exposure to lots of children to lots of children, as a teacher's aide, and because she has good observational skills and empathy. Michael Pearl is a narcissist, and this makes him basically incurious about other people.

[2xx1xy1JD]

This one thread is full of people saying parents who spank are "beating" their children. My only issue is calling me wicked for spanking, or blaming Pearl for the book as it relates to the deaths of those kids.

While I understand your point, I would disagree. The idea that the only people that can be experts in child training are those that have been given a degree from some university is an idea that has only been around for a couple hundred years at best. To say that no person has been worthy of child training until a degree program was formed for it is simply silly. If you are a Christian, then you would agree that it is God who gives wisdom. A man who has devoted his life to helping others, who loves the Lord, has raised 5 healthy children, is more qualified than some secular humanist with a degree and an atheistic worldview.

Again, if you want to claim the book is not perfect, then that is one thing. To claim it is responsible for some child's death is a leap of grand canyon proportions. Many parents who spank incessantly are missing one or more of the other important aspects of effective child training such as the relationship and an atmosphere of love and respect, both of which are laid out in great detail in the book as well as his other material. Only a cold, heartless person could kill their own child. This is not the Pearls fault. It simply isn't.

Actually, I took a parenting course from a very religious lady with 12 children plus one on the way. I considered her to be an expert because after I ran into her at the gym one Friday morning, she told me to bring the whole family for dinner that evening. If a pregnant woman with 12 kids can consider her Nia class to be a priority, invite 5 extra people with almost no notice, and manage dinner with all of us without any yelling or fighting and have kids who are helpful and cooperative, then I think she's mastered the parenting thing. Oddly enough....she's was the strongest proponent of positive parenting that I had met. Her classes were based on a book called "Raising Roses Among the Thorns".

I'm also willing to follow the advice in "How to Talk so Kids Will LIsten and Listen So Kids Will Talk" because my mother had the book, because I know so many others who read it and used it successfully and because I've seen it work when I tried some of the techniques. It also has no real downside - well, other than a tendency for me to think to myself "that sounds like my mother!"

[choleric]

You haven't broken their will. You've conditioned them to be compliant. The problem is that they will be compliant with anyone. They will be a prime target for manipulation and for exploitation by every huckster and sociopath and fast talking evangelist on the planet.

Come on, you don't seriously believe this silliness do you? Just because I choose to spank, suddenly my children will obey anyone? Really?

You demand more of children than God requires of adults. Jesus doesn't shame us or force us to do anything. The Spirit does not punish us but guides us. We are not Spirit-controlled but are Spirit-led. We have the choice to obey or to disobey. God gives that to us. He doesn't break our will but restores us. The Spirit of God in us works in us and convicts us out of love, but it does not turn love into cold duty and pain. The Spirit is not an authoritarian, angry tyrant. The image we are given is that of a dove, a gentle creature. But it all depends on your concept of who God is. I understand Him as all powerful and I am in woeful awe, but I also know that He is not heavy handed, either. That is the arm of flesh and the wrath of man which doesn't work the righteousness of God.

Here is where I see a disconnect in your line of reasoning. First and foremost, for those people who ultimately do not submit to the authority of God, there is an eternal consequence. Teaching your children to obey is you is but a small glimps of the ultimate relationship they have with their Creator. They have the choice to obey or not, to believe or not, and you are correct that God forces no one. But that choice has the ultimate consequence.

And for those that are His, we are also chastened by God. He chastens those He loves. It is as the 23rd Psalm states, "thy rod and thy staff". It is the twofold role of the shepherd. The rod and the staff. The Hebrew word for rod is:

shêbeṭ

shay’-bet

From an unused root probably meaning to branch off; a scion, that is, (literally) a stick (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or (figuratively) a clan: – X correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.

It is the same word used repeatedly in Proverbs in relation to parents and their children as well as some (10:13) that do not relate to parenting but is shown as an example of the biblical use of the word.

Pro_10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

Pro_13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Pro_22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Pro_23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Pro_23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Notice in 10:13 that the rod is for the back, and in 23:13-14 we are twice told to “beat” the child. I am quite sure that in the TTUAC book, we are properly taught the context there and we are not told to beat in the modern sense of the word, but rather to spank.

God will use the rod on those of us who sin against Him. Sure, we are in a relationship of unconditional love, and we should have that sort of atmosphere with our kids as well. We have no fear of hell, but God will still chasten us, even to death (see 1 Cor 11:29-30)

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

1Co 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

There are consequences for our actions, we reap what we sow. Our Father in heaven chastens those He loves. We do the same for our children. Whether you choose to spank or not is up to you. But God does have an opinion.

[choleric]

I never said Michael Pearl's incompetence was due to him not having an advanced degree. My mother does not have an advanced degree, and she knows more about child development and child pyschology than Michael Pearl. This is from having exposure to lots of children to lots of children, as a teacher's aide, and because she has good observational skills and empathy. Michael Pearl is a narcissist, and this makes him basically incurious about other people.

Oh, I didn't realize that you knew Michael Pearl. You must know him if you can claim with such authority that he is a narcissit.

All kidding aside, I am sure that many people that know Mike Pearl, feel the same way about him as you do about your mother. As a matter of fact, the book came about when a lady that knew the family asked Mike in a letter how he raised such wonderful children. The book got its' start as a response to that ladies request and the rest...as they say...is history.

[treemom]

So is it your claim that you never one time spanked, put in time out, sent to their room, didn't let them have dessert, made them come in when it was dark? Do you expect me to believe that?

No I didn't say that. One time does not a habit or style of parenting make.