Cruel Parenting
- Thread starter frugalmom
- Start date
- Status
karstkid
New member
Re: Re: Re: .
Re: Re: Re: .
Re: Re: Re: .
Yea, Gothard opened my eyes to how hard-hearted, cruel, and legalistic some Christians can be. Gothard is a cultist. He is into legalism and extreme authority teaching (shepherding). There is very little, if any, of God's grace in anything he teaches. He knows nothing about marriage and family. He didn't get married until his 60's. He is the one I first heard what Frugalmom is speaking about in post #1. His form of parenting is cruel. I hope you don't follow his lead with your family. A very resonsible and much better form of parenting would contained in the book "Parenting with Love and Logic" by Jim Fay and Foster Cline. The book is published by Navigators.
Absolutely! Shame on any church who takes their youth to his seminars. It would be as our Lord said, "leading these little ones astray."
the Sibbie
New member
I just read the first chapter of "To Train Up A Child" and this thread. I'd like to add a couple of comments.
First, I thought it was a little odd that the author used examples of training animals, but I understand that training a child would be a little different and probably more complex. For instance, we wouldn't train our kids how to stop and go. We'd train them how to obey our "No's". But with a child that's too young to understand words, finding some way to associate a negative consequence with one of there wrongdoings seems like a good alternative.
About the method of teaching a child not to play with a certain object, I don't understand how that's so wrong. Eventually, you will be spanking them for touching things you don't want them to touch, so what's the harm in teaching them how to respond to your "no". At a certain point they will be able to understand why you said "no" but until then all the can do is trust your judgement. if they are trained to recognize and obey the command, you'll probably have less spanking to do in the future.
Thirdly, the woman mentioned in the third paragraph, told her children,
And about the knot on a child's head it says, "They [the children]....didn't expect any attention when one of the girls turned a rocking horse over and got a knot on her head."
The instance of a baby arching it's back and letting out a scream when putting him to bed and the little Amish boy trying to throw himself from his father's lap, sounds like obvious spoiled behavior.
And nursing babies that bite, seem old enough to train not to bite. Especially since they look up at you when you howl out in pain or smack their leg. (I don't have any kids of my own yet, but I'm the oldest of 10 and have witnessed this many times. I wouldn't say disciplining your child for that is cruelty.)
Poly seemed to clarify the rest and made a good point about training your child not to climb the stairs, especially if one day you'd regret not training them if they fell down the stairs (Like when my dad forgot to put the gate up and I rolled down the stairs...then he punched a hole in the wall he was so mad at himself).
P.S. What I got from the first chapter is that it is better train your child to be submissive rather than beat your child into submission.
First, I thought it was a little odd that the author used examples of training animals, but I understand that training a child would be a little different and probably more complex. For instance, we wouldn't train our kids how to stop and go. We'd train them how to obey our "No's". But with a child that's too young to understand words, finding some way to associate a negative consequence with one of there wrongdoings seems like a good alternative.
About the method of teaching a child not to play with a certain object, I don't understand how that's so wrong. Eventually, you will be spanking them for touching things you don't want them to touch, so what's the harm in teaching them how to respond to your "no". At a certain point they will be able to understand why you said "no" but until then all the can do is trust your judgement. if they are trained to recognize and obey the command, you'll probably have less spanking to do in the future.
Thirdly, the woman mentioned in the third paragraph, told her children,
The author mentions that he wasn't aware the children were there-
I wouldn't say the mother was ignoring the child's needs.
And about the knot on a child's head it says, "They [the children]....didn't expect any attention when one of the girls turned a rocking horse over and got a knot on her head."
- It doesn't say that mother totally ignored to see if the child was hurt.
- I've seen lots of kids get a bump or scrape and not make a big deal of it until someone else makes a big deal about it. The child will at first have a suprised look then, if you don't make a fuss about it, will shrug the pain off (most kids are pretty tough). But if you do run over to them after that surprised look and they notice that you are making a big deal about it, they usually start to cry. (If a child is severely hurt, you'll know.)
- I am not saying you should ignore your child's screams if they are severely hurt.
The instance of a baby arching it's back and letting out a scream when putting him to bed and the little Amish boy trying to throw himself from his father's lap, sounds like obvious spoiled behavior.
And nursing babies that bite, seem old enough to train not to bite. Especially since they look up at you when you howl out in pain or smack their leg. (I don't have any kids of my own yet, but I'm the oldest of 10 and have witnessed this many times. I wouldn't say disciplining your child for that is cruelty.)
Poly seemed to clarify the rest and made a good point about training your child not to climb the stairs, especially if one day you'd regret not training them if they fell down the stairs (Like when my dad forgot to put the gate up and I rolled down the stairs...then he punched a hole in the wall he was so mad at himself).
P.S. What I got from the first chapter is that it is better train your child to be submissive rather than beat your child into submission.
Last edited:
Maybe because frugalmom did some mischaracturizing of the book? did you ever think of that?
Have you read the responses? (especially Poly's)
Isn't it possible that frugalmom's demonizing was a bit over the top?
That's just my take as I haven't read the book myself.
Frugalmom has every right to dislike the book and its contents but that doesn't mean she is 100% spot on target either.
I suspect that like with most books there are things in it that I might disagree with and other things that I would agree with.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Not fair.
I will admit that after hearing that Bob promoted the book I felt the need to check into it further. I thought I at least knew him well enough to know that he wouldn't endorse what I thought was being suggested by this book. But if I found out that he did, I had made up my mind that I was going to call the show and discuss it. I would not have hesitated in the least to let him know that I felt this kind of child rearing was wrong if the book really did advocate some of these extreme things that had been implied. I respect the man but he's not perfect. I do not blindly accept anything he has to say although it's clear that you think this is the case since you didn't bother to see how evident it was that this first chapter was taken out of context.
Last edited:
TruthSmack! 
oly: *slap* :lucky:
oly: *slap* :lucky:
Hence the reason I rarely side with :lucky:
the Sibbie
New member
It sounded like an insult to me.
Not much different than calling us "Enyartians and his cultist followers".
frugalmom
Night Elf
I'm answering Clete's post to me from the "Who is Bob Enyart" thread:
I don't believe that a baby is old enough to understand those things. And I don't like the idea of setting up "training sessions" to punish a child when it fails.
You keep saying child - the first chapter of the book I referred to talked about babies. How exactly will "life" train a baby who is with it's parents?
How old of a child are you talking about? It sounds like you are getting off topic a bit and referring to an older child. I was talking about how the book recommended training babies.
I wouldn't be surprised, considering how repulsive the first chapter was.
:crackup: You have come to an extremely inaccurate idea of who I am. You must think I am some 17 or 18 yr old who just finished public school and doesn't have a clue. LOL - actually, I am probably as far away from the mainstream as you can get. What I mean is, I support:
-Breastfeeding
-Co-sleeping
-Responding to infant's cries and meeting babie's needs. For example, feeding on demand is crucial.
-Wearing baby in a sling
-Homeschooling
-Not vaccinating
- Homemade baby food making and cloth diapering is fine by me too.
How many parenting magazines do you think endorse these things? As far as school, I graduated from Christian school, a long time ago. I'm in my 30s now.
True. It was around 100 years ago when male doctors tried to change the way mothers had been parenting forever. It was then that they began introducing artificial feeding and feeding schedules. It was then that they began saying that a newborn or a baby could be spoiled. This idea ran prevalent, unfortunately, for decades. Now, however, the spoiling myth has been debunked time and time again. It's sad that they had to do studies for things that are common sense. Studies that showed things like how babies who have their needs met and are held alot and are loved, thrive and are so happy and secure. Studies that proved how detrimental it is to babie's health when it is left to cry. I have links on this info if you would like.
I don't believe that a baby is old enough to understand those things. And I don't like the idea of setting up "training sessions" to punish a child when it fails.
You keep saying child - the first chapter of the book I referred to talked about babies. How exactly will "life" train a baby who is with it's parents?
How old of a child are you talking about? It sounds like you are getting off topic a bit and referring to an older child. I was talking about how the book recommended training babies.
I wouldn't be surprised, considering how repulsive the first chapter was.
:crackup: You have come to an extremely inaccurate idea of who I am. You must think I am some 17 or 18 yr old who just finished public school and doesn't have a clue. LOL - actually, I am probably as far away from the mainstream as you can get. What I mean is, I support:
-Breastfeeding
-Co-sleeping
-Responding to infant's cries and meeting babie's needs. For example, feeding on demand is crucial.
-Wearing baby in a sling
-Homeschooling
-Not vaccinating
- Homemade baby food making and cloth diapering is fine by me too.
How many parenting magazines do you think endorse these things? As far as school, I graduated from Christian school, a long time ago. I'm in my 30s now.
True. It was around 100 years ago when male doctors tried to change the way mothers had been parenting forever. It was then that they began introducing artificial feeding and feeding schedules. It was then that they began saying that a newborn or a baby could be spoiled. This idea ran prevalent, unfortunately, for decades. Now, however, the spoiling myth has been debunked time and time again. It's sad that they had to do studies for things that are common sense. Studies that showed things like how babies who have their needs met and are held alot and are loved, thrive and are so happy and secure. Studies that proved how detrimental it is to babie's health when it is left to cry. I have links on this info if you would like.
Last edited:
SOTK
New member
For what it's worth, I've read the first chapter and pretty much agree with Frugalmom. I disagree with the authors of this book (at least the first chapter) and don't care for their "theories" on toddler training at all. I'm not perfect, but I think I've been doing a pretty good job of raising my children without having had "trained" them with a switch when they were an infant or toddler.
I do certainly believe in spanking. I do it on occasion when appropriate. It can work pretty well. Like any form of discipline, if overused or abused, it will lose its effectiveness. I tend to mix up my disciplining. Keeps them guessing!
I think spanking should be used for discipline only. Not "training". If the authors want to compare animals to children, why do the majority of animal behaviorists say that a master should never spank their dog, for example? It's because the dog is easily confused and begins to associate the hand of its master as the enemy. In keeping with the whole animal comparison, which I find distasteful incidentally, wouldn't it be fair to assume that a child may grow confused at that age with his/her parent "training" by means of pain? Possibly grow resentful even? I don't know really know the answer, and I thank God that I don't.
In Christ,
SOTK
I do certainly believe in spanking. I do it on occasion when appropriate. It can work pretty well. Like any form of discipline, if overused or abused, it will lose its effectiveness. I tend to mix up my disciplining. Keeps them guessing!
I think spanking should be used for discipline only. Not "training". If the authors want to compare animals to children, why do the majority of animal behaviorists say that a master should never spank their dog, for example? It's because the dog is easily confused and begins to associate the hand of its master as the enemy. In keeping with the whole animal comparison, which I find distasteful incidentally, wouldn't it be fair to assume that a child may grow confused at that age with his/her parent "training" by means of pain? Possibly grow resentful even? I don't know really know the answer, and I thank God that I don't.
In Christ,
SOTK
frugalmom
Night Elf
My reply to 1WAY from the other thread.
:doh: Common sense??
Maybe that's why God didn't say "train up a baby."
Right. Shame on those babies for wanting to be held.
A young baby thrives on being held and attended to. This is natural. And if you don't believe in what is natural, studies have proven it. As the baby grows and becomes mobile, it won't want to be held as much. A baby is not "self centered" as the book said. It's wants are it's needs. BTW What gives you the idea that they want to be held "all the time"? They are content sometimes in a swing or carrier, if mom needs to do something. Plus, they sleep alot when they are young. People act like they can't wait to have kids and then when they do, many of them treat their babies as if they are a nuisance. Like they have to try to train it to be detached. It's so unnatural and cruel.
Sadly, 1WAY, you are one who wrongly thinks that babies can be spoiled, and that they are self-centered little brats who are trying to manipulate. A newborn, which the book was talking about, is not capable of trying to manipulate. It's wants are it's needs. Older child, different story. I have many links on this topic if you would like to read them. The "spoil that baby" myth that began around 1900 has been debunked time and time again.
Oh come on, 1WAY. That's grasping for straws. Simply put, you do the best you can do, no matter how many God blesses you with. If you do the best you can, there is no guilt involved. That's no excuse to treat a singleton cruelly, just because one in every however million has quadruplets or sextuplets.
And once again, it was talking about a newborn, who are not capable of being spoiled. Common sense tells you this, and it tells the mother who hardens her heart and goes against her maternal instinct to let her child cry it out. The baby isn't being trained. The only one who is "trained" is the mother who trains herself to ignore her child's cry.
Thanks, but I don't feel compelled to track down Bob Enyart.
:doh: Common sense??
Maybe that's why God didn't say "train up a baby."
Right. Shame on those babies for wanting to be held.
A young baby thrives on being held and attended to. This is natural. And if you don't believe in what is natural, studies have proven it. As the baby grows and becomes mobile, it won't want to be held as much. A baby is not "self centered" as the book said. It's wants are it's needs. BTW What gives you the idea that they want to be held "all the time"? They are content sometimes in a swing or carrier, if mom needs to do something. Plus, they sleep alot when they are young. People act like they can't wait to have kids and then when they do, many of them treat their babies as if they are a nuisance. Like they have to try to train it to be detached. It's so unnatural and cruel.
Sadly, 1WAY, you are one who wrongly thinks that babies can be spoiled, and that they are self-centered little brats who are trying to manipulate. A newborn, which the book was talking about, is not capable of trying to manipulate. It's wants are it's needs. Older child, different story. I have many links on this topic if you would like to read them. The "spoil that baby" myth that began around 1900 has been debunked time and time again.
Oh come on, 1WAY. That's grasping for straws. Simply put, you do the best you can do, no matter how many God blesses you with. If you do the best you can, there is no guilt involved. That's no excuse to treat a singleton cruelly, just because one in every however million has quadruplets or sextuplets.
And once again, it was talking about a newborn, who are not capable of being spoiled. Common sense tells you this, and it tells the mother who hardens her heart and goes against her maternal instinct to let her child cry it out. The baby isn't being trained. The only one who is "trained" is the mother who trains herself to ignore her child's cry.
Originally posted by 1Way
Bob Enyart is not a normal/frequent member of this forum, I very much doubt that a PM nor an email will reach him. You really should call him during, or right after, a show, as I hear it's the best way to reach him, unless you go to his church or are a family member.
Thanks, but I don't feel compelled to track down Bob Enyart.
frugalmom
Night Elf
Re: unfair review
Re: unfair review
How could you conclude that, when I even said: "HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" "
The whole thing, well half of was, that they had examples of trying to explain things to small babies - who won't understand what they are saying.
The book called it newborn training. And it specifically said that newborns would need training.
Where did I say that??
The "child" you were referring to was a 5 month old. It is disgusting to use a switch on a 5 month old baby. They even said, that her little brain didn't seem to understand why she was being switched.
They make gates for stairs and that sort of thing. I wonder if they used switches on their 5 month old for going near electrical outlets? What about the stove? And toilets? Coffee table corners?
The book used these examples of setting up babies to fail, in order to "train" them. Did God know we would give in to temptation with the tree? And here I was thinking you were one of the ones against predestination. (sorry if I have you confused with another poster)
Re: unfair review
How could you conclude that, when I even said: "HA - I can just imagine someone being dumb enough to try this and then have the baby look at you as if it's thinking "What are you talking about?" "
The whole thing, well half of was, that they had examples of trying to explain things to small babies - who won't understand what they are saying.
The book called it newborn training. And it specifically said that newborns would need training.
Where did I say that??
The "child" you were referring to was a 5 month old. It is disgusting to use a switch on a 5 month old baby. They even said, that her little brain didn't seem to understand why she was being switched.
They make gates for stairs and that sort of thing. I wonder if they used switches on their 5 month old for going near electrical outlets? What about the stove? And toilets? Coffee table corners?
The book used these examples of setting up babies to fail, in order to "train" them. Did God know we would give in to temptation with the tree? And here I was thinking you were one of the ones against predestination. (sorry if I have you confused with another poster)
Last edited:
frugalmom
Night Elf
Re: Re: .
Re: Re: .
Hey karstkid! :wave:
I don't believe I have heard of this Gothard character - and I'm glad I haven't from what you said.
That really angers me too about the schedule! That is so wrong!
I remember you saying that you and your wife supported breastfeeding in another thread. I think that is awesome! :cheers: to the karstkids!
I was thinking something similar about the churches with the dress codes. When I hear about churches that promote cruelty, schedules and so forth, it reminds me of those rattlesnake churches I have seen on TV :devil: :chuckle:
Re: Re: .
Hey karstkid! :wave:
I don't believe I have heard of this Gothard character - and I'm glad I haven't from what you said.
That really angers me too about the schedule!
That is so wrong!I remember you saying that you and your wife supported breastfeeding in another thread. I think that is awesome! :cheers: to the karstkids!
I was thinking something similar about the churches with the dress codes. When I hear about churches that promote cruelty, schedules and so forth, it reminds me of those rattlesnake churches I have seen on TV :devil: :chuckle:
the Sibbie
New member
:ha: Oh yeah...:ha:...thanks for the correction, Zakath.Originally posted by Zakath
Isn't that "Enyartians and his neo-con, fascist cult followers"?
Btw, nice purple star! :thumb: Did you stop by the Purple Star Club?
- Status