Trish Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I keep thinking that grandmother who punished her granddaughter by making her run until she dropped dead, well, she probably didn't have a hardware store nearby to get the plumbling supply line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 YES. When I heard of that poor girl on the news last week (wasn't it last week?) I immediately wondered whether the mother and grandmother had read the Pearls's 'philosophy.' Poor, sweet girl. astrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Parents who blanket train I'm afraid to ask: what is "blanket train"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'm afraid to ask: what is "blanket train"? It is teaching a baby to stay on a blanket. If baby keeps trying to crawl off (in the Pearls' version), then it eventually escalates to swatting the baby with a spoon or plumbing line to break the baby of disobedience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 It is teaching a baby to stay on a blanket. If baby keeps trying to crawl off (in the Pearls' version), then it eventually escalates to swatting the baby with a spoon or plumbing line to break the baby of disobedience. It is part of the older Babywise book (I don't know about the new one) too. It seems to be punishment for punishment sake and is totally out of sync with infant brain development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) I have to say that I thought the book was pretty ok, but that when I watched him speak I thought "stupid idiot man." Here's the deal, as long as they don't practice beating an infant, hitting their children with pvc pipe.... Striking them multiple times... So the book is pretty ok even though you are not ok with what the book tells parents is the right thing to do? I don't get it. The book advocates hitting infants well under 1 year of age and setting them up to be hit (which frankly sounds sadistic), striking children with plastic piping and and striking them not only multiple times but as often as it takes to wholly subdue the child to your will. What the book says to do is blood chilling. I think what we have in Michael Pearl is an uninformed, uneducated and frankly sadistic man who holds extremely misogynist and anti-child views and has justified himself by perverting scripture. I know a lot of Christians and a lot of conservative Christians and a lot of people (religious or not) who condone or practice spanking but I can't think of very many that are down with this. None of the mainstream conservative Christian leaders I can think of like Gothard and Dobson are ok with him either. Edited February 28, 2012 by kijipt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 It is teaching a baby to stay on a blanket. If baby keeps trying to crawl off (in the Pearls' version), then it eventually escalates to swatting the baby with a spoon or plumbing line to break the baby of disobedience. That makes me seriously nauseous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Katie ;) I read the book and it there are many parts about relationships and things that are fine. I didn't realize how people were using the book until I saw on the news the people who have "used" it to abuse/kill their children. The magazine where their (adult) children speak about raising children actually sound very "Charlotte Masony" ;) She talks about giving her children little brooms to help clean up with her... making breakfast together... etc. Because of the parts that I DO NOT agree with, I threw away the book, don't recommend it to others, and asked that the Library not have it in their "free give away" stack. So... that's what I meant. When I read it, I didn't see the parts that were disagreeable to me. When I see how others read it, and the Pearls speaking themselves, I can't condone recommending the book.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 The magazine where their (adult) children speak about raising children actually sound very "Charlotte Masony" ;) She talks about giving her children little brooms to help clean up with her... making breakfast together... etc. Sounds more like Montessori to me. Only I don't think she dealt with the troubled orphans very roughly. And gee whiz, Montessori classrooms are orderly!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggieamy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Ugh. Some of the attitudes on here just make me feel sick. I don't understand how anyone cannot find these people to be beyond vile. I guess people can try to defend it biblically but I sure can't picture the Virgin Mother walking around swatting infant Jesus with plumbing line. Yuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Ugh. Some of the attitudes on here just make me feel sick. I don't understand how anyone cannot find these people to be beyond vile. I guess people can try to defend it biblically but I sure can't picture the Virgin Mother walking around swatting infant Jesus with plumbing line. Yuck. Many would tell you that there was no need; Jesus was sin-less. The pervasive idea that childish, childlike, immature behavior needs to be punished out of children is curious at best, and icky when I spend too much time thinking about it. Jesus was fully human. He passed through developmental stages. I believe that developmental realities are God's design. God's science is such that we roll over, sit up, crawl, walk, run. God's science is such that we "mouth" many things, touch many things, want many things. God's science puts an immature Savior in the temple when his family/clan is heading home. He's still a Savior - but he was also 12. And I frankly think the fact that this is the only story we have between Jesus' years 3 and 30 is tellng. It's interesting to me that legalistic, punitive perspected people never address that event in context. If THEIR 12 year old did the same thing, they'd be livid and impose consequences. It's how an immature Savior acts. I can't believe that Jesus never reached for his (earthly) Dad's tools. I bet if he were born now, he'd want the remote. And if Jesus was a normal baby, toddler, preschooler (not that "preschooler" existed in theory then), young child, and youth, then the behavior associated with these stages are not sin. Children are, by definition, immature. Time, wise counsel, and a willing heart matures them along with life experience. Honestly, to call it "sin" takes away from the beauty, magnificence, and outrageous glory that is God's creation. Human growth and development is amazing. It's one thing that keeps me believing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Many would tell you that there was no need; Jesus was sin-less. The pervasive idea that childish, childlike, immature behavior needs to be punished out of children is curious at best, and icky when I spend too much time thinking about it. Jesus was fully human. He passed through developmental stages. I believe that developmental realities are God's design. God's science is such that we roll over, sit up, crawl, walk, run. God's science is such that we "mouth" many things, touch many things, want many things. God's science puts an immature Savior in the temple when his family/clan is heading home. He's still a Savior - but he was also 12. And I frankly think the fact that this is the only story we have between Jesus' years 3 and 30 is tellng. It's interesting to me that legalistic, punitive perspected people never address that event in context. If THEIR 12 year old did the same thing, they'd be livid and impose consequences. It's how an immature Savior acts. I can't believe that Jesus never reached for his (earthly) Dad's tools. I bet if he were born now, he'd want the remote. And if Jesus was a normal baby, toddler, preschooler (not that "preschooler" existed in theory then), young child, and youth, then the behavior associated with these stages are not sin. Children are, by definition, immature. Time, wise counsel, and a willing heart matures them along with life experience. Honestly, to call it "sin" takes away from the beauty, magnificence, and outrageous glory that is God's creation. Human growth and development is amazing. It's one thing that keeps me believing. Wow. Wonderful. Thank you for this. I want to print it out and blow it up and post it everywhere! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Many would tell you that there was no need; Jesus was sin-less. The pervasive idea that childish, childlike, immature behavior needs to be punished out of children is curious at best, and icky when I spend too much time thinking about it. Jesus was fully human. He passed through developmental stages. I believe that developmental realities are God's design. . I've read the threads on the pearls, and I find them positively satanic in their egerness to get blind obedience from their young children to meet their own desires. A thought occured to me, I wonder it never did before. How would the pearls/anyone pushing the "beat the sin out of the child" explain Matthew 18:3 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. so, the Savior is commanding people to be as little children - but the pearls and their syncophants are telling their followers children are full of sin and to beat it out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleIzumi Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Wow. Wonderful. Thank you for this. I want to print it out and blow it up and post it everywhere! :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabel Lee Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I agree that what the Pearl's teach is atrocious. There are already enough posts here saying that same thing without me adding my 2 cents. I have friends IRL who've fallen into this, or who I was friends with before I realized what & who the Pearls were, so I have a lot to say, but it's already been said here. Edited February 29, 2012 by Annabel Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabel Lee Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) . Edited February 29, 2012 by Annabel Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I've read the threads on the pearls, and I find them positively satanic in their egerness to get blind obedience from their young children to meet their own desires. A thought occured to me, I wonder it never did before. How would the pearls/anyone pushing the "beat the sin out of the child" explain Matthew 18:3 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. so, the Savior is commanding people to be as little children - but the pearls and their syncophants are telling their followers children are full of sin and to beat it out of them. :grouphug: :iagree: "Let the little children come to me and do not stop them." Praise Jesus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Many would tell you that there was no need; Jesus was sin-less. The pervasive idea that childish, childlike, immature behavior needs to be punished out of children is curious at best, and icky when I spend too much time thinking about it. Jesus was fully human. He passed through developmental stages. I believe that developmental realities are God's design. God's science is such that we roll over, sit up, crawl, walk, run. God's science is such that we "mouth" many things, touch many things, want many things. God's science puts an immature Savior in the temple when his family/clan is heading home. He's still a Savior - but he was also 12. And I frankly think the fact that this is the only story we have between Jesus' years 3 and 30 is tellng. It's interesting to me that legalistic, punitive perspected people never address that event in context. If THEIR 12 year old did the same thing, they'd be livid and impose consequences. It's how an immature Savior acts. I can't believe that Jesus never reached for his (earthly) Dad's tools. I bet if he were born now, he'd want the remote. And if Jesus was a normal baby, toddler, preschooler (not that "preschooler" existed in theory then), young child, and youth, then the behavior associated with these stages are not sin. Children are, by definition, immature. Time, wise counsel, and a willing heart matures them along with life experience. Honestly, to call it "sin" takes away from the beauty, magnificence, and outrageous glory that is God's creation. Human growth and development is amazing. It's one thing that keeps me believing. Thank you, J. You have a way of putting things in perspective. As usual, I couldn't agree with you more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggieamy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Many would tell you that there was no need; Jesus was sin-less. The pervasive idea that childish, childlike, immature behavior needs to be punished out of children is curious at best, and icky when I spend too much time thinking about it. Jesus was fully human. He passed through developmental stages. I believe that developmental realities are God's design. God's science is such that we roll over, sit up, crawl, walk, run. God's science is such that we "mouth" many things, touch many things, want many things. God's science puts an immature Savior in the temple when his family/clan is heading home. He's still a Savior - but he was also 12. And I frankly think the fact that this is the only story we have between Jesus' years 3 and 30 is tellng. It's interesting to me that legalistic, punitive perspected people never address that event in context. If THEIR 12 year old did the same thing, they'd be livid and impose consequences. It's how an immature Savior acts. I can't believe that Jesus never reached for his (earthly) Dad's tools. I bet if he were born now, he'd want the remote. And if Jesus was a normal baby, toddler, preschooler (not that "preschooler" existed in theory then), young child, and youth, then the behavior associated with these stages are not sin. Children are, by definition, immature. Time, wise counsel, and a willing heart matures them along with life experience. Honestly, to call it "sin" takes away from the beauty, magnificence, and outrageous glory that is God's creation. Human growth and development is amazing. It's one thing that keeps me believing. Well said. I agree. I don't believe a baby crying because it's hungry or needs comfort is a sin. Maybe my religious education is lacking but I can't picture that baby Jesus never wanted his Mama to just pick him up and hold him close sometimes. Babies communicate through crying. Crying isn't a sin nor is being a curious toddler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.