Cruel Parenting

[Turbo]

And yet... When the switch was placed on the stair, the baby made the connection. :idea:

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Flipper

The sibbie:



Switching a 5 month old because it was, by the author's own admission, unable to understand why it was being spanked?

I doubt very much the 5 month old has the capacity to understand why its parents are hurting it.

Well, it worked and appearently the child didn't associate the pain with her parents. The baby associated it with the switch. I highly doubt it caused any "emotional scars". If that is the case I'm sure plenty of us would be trama cases. Are you even for spanking at all?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Flipper
Switching a 5 month old because it was, by the author's own admission, unable to understand why it was being spanked?

I doubt very much the 5 month old has the capacity to understand why its parents are hurting it.

From what I've read here so far, it seems what the book does is use behaviorist techniques (behavior modification) applied to babies.

This particular one is based on the observation that humans tend to try to dissociate pain and painful experiences away from those who also provide comfort and food. That's why the baby focussed on the switch, not his parents.

In adults, a variant of this is seen when military boot camp graduates dissociate the physical traumas of boot camp from their instructors or when sexually abused children will not attribute abuse to clergy or other authority figures. In other circumstances it is similar to "Stockholm Syndrome".

It's a survival mechanism to keep the self-identity from shattering under pressure of cognitive dissonance. And of course, like any other human mechanism it is not 100% effective for 100% of the population.

That's where knowing your child and experience at childrearing (i.e. consulting grandparents, older parents, etc.) come in to play.

 

[frugalmom]

Re: Re: Re: unfair review

Re: Re: Re: unfair review

Originally posted by Poly
This to me, is a little misleading. You do say that you read this on another forum but you kind of stick it in the middle of your critique of this book and it leads one to possibly assume that these authors support this same kind of thing when they make it clear that "crying is newborn's only way of communication in expressing his needs".

I did not stick it in the middle. I covered several topics in post 1 and was already finished talking about ch. 1 of the book. I didn't even mention the book by the time I was describing the topic at another forum. That's why I titled this thread "cruel parenting". I have discussed alot more than just that first chapter.

Originally posted by Poly
What is wrong with wanting to prevent the baby from being electricuted, burned or drowned?

Why don't you ask the Perls, they are the ones who have the problem with babyproofing the home, not me. They commented on that in the first chapter.

Originally posted by Poly
I don't know if I've ever known of a baby who wasn't fascinated with outlets and, given time, will check it out. Are you willing to take the chance that you'll get him the first time he attempts? Are you confident enough that you will always have your eye on him?

I'm not stupid enough to think that using a switch on a small baby is going to make it understand that stairs, stove, toilets and coffee table corners are off limits. Would you go around behind the crawling baby with a switch, so you could swat it everytime it goes near these things? I disagree with the Perls - the home should be babyproofed with gates, plug ins and so on. And that doesn't take the place of constant supervision. A little one at that age shouldn't be left unattended - but it certainly won't hurt to babyproof the home.

Originally posted by Poly
And, yes, I know they have those little plug ins. Are you also confident enough that they baby will never figure out how to pull them out.

Of course not - but they do help. Besides, a baby who is strong enough to claw one of those plug ins out of the electrical outlet, will probably be old enough to understand what the parents mean if they have taught it to stay way.

 

[frugalmom]

Re: Re: Re: unfair review

Re: Re: Re: unfair review

Originally posted by the Sibbie
But a 5 month old is completely capable of learning, right?

Sibbie - at this point I would just be repeating what I have said over and over in this thread. Are you sure you have read through this thread?

If babies were so easily "trained" as the Enyart supporters are repeatedly suggesting, then why don't you hear of people going ahead and using the switch to potty train them at a young age? Why waste all that money on diapers?

Originally posted by the Sibbie
I don't believe that God would be so stupid not to be aware that it was a possibility that Adam and Eve might disobey. But, I'm not sure I totally agree with they way the author uses that scenario. While I wouldn't say that God was using the tree to "train the couple", I think it was used to allow Adam and Eve the option to obey or disobey if they so chose.

I agree.

 

[Clete]

Sorry to have taken so long to respond to this. I hadn't noticed it till tonight!

Originally posted by frugalmom
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.

Again, you are reading things into the book that are not there and misunderstanding the terms being used.

You DO NOT punish a baby, you train it.
It is not necessary for them to understand why you don't want them to grab at things on the coffee table in order to be trained not to do so.
You train a child the same way you train a mule or a puppy. You reward the behavior you want with things the baby finds positive and you reward behavior you don't want with things the baby finds negative.
You do this yourself whether you think you do or not. Your baby will behave precisely the way you expect and are willing to tolerate. You cannot avoid training a creature as intelligent as a newborn baby.

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?

Yeah babies!
How many times do you think a baby will shut his fingers in a door if left to himself to learn on his own?
How many times do you think he will dump hot coffee on himself when he grabs a mug off the night stand that your visiting company mindlessly left sitting within reach?
I can tell you that I simply do not have to worry about that sort of thing because I have spent time training my baby not to do certain things that could get her hurt or cause something to get damaged. I do not have to childproof my house because I have house proofed my child.

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.

How about 1 day old! Is that young enough for you? How many times did you allow your baby to clamp down on your nipple while breast feeding before you made it clear that it wasn't the proper thing to do?
How many times did you allow your baby to dig his claws into your cheek before he came to understand that you didn't like it very much?
Do you see my point? Everyone trains the babies. The Pearl's have simply taken that training further than you think your baby is capable of.

: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 baby’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.

You misunderstood my point. My commentary wasn't as much about you as it was the culture in which you grew up in. It is the only reason, or at least the chief reason you have reacted the way you have to this book. There simply isn't any real abuse advocated in it.
Further, since you brought it up. Co-sleeping and on demand feeding as well as responding to every cry and whimper a baby makes is training it. You are actively reinforcing the babies natural self-centeredness and you are laying a foundation that will prove nearly impossible to undo when the child gets older.
You know there is no magic day when you child suddenly stops being a baby and turns into a toddler. The habits you forge today will not suddenly disappear because the child turns three. And there will come a day when you realize that the child should no longer get everything he asks for when he asks for it because he asked for it. Do you suppose that when that day comes you will be able to sit the child down as reason with him, explaining how he is no longer a baby and that while he's used to getting what he wants on demand, that just isn't appropriate any more, and so no, he can't have a fourteenth piece of candy before lunch!

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.

The parenting principles in the Pearl's book are Biblically based, especially those that apply to babies! That's why this book wouldn't have raised any eye brows a century or even two centuries ago. Back then people actually read the Bible, and the culture was based on its principles (for the most part).
The only reaction that they would have gotten would perhaps have been someone questioning whether a book filled with such obvious common sense need be written in the first place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Re: Re: Re: Re: unfair review

Re: Re: Re: Re: unfair review

Originally posted by frugalmom
If babies were so easily "trained" as the Enyart supporters are repeatedly suggesting, then why don't you hear of people going ahead and using the switch to potty train them at a young age? Why waste all that money on diapers?

Actually I know of one couple who potty trained their baby at I think it was 6 months old, but maybe it was 9. Either way, it was before the child could walk. They used the same technique that American Indians used to use, only they waited till the child was much older than the Indians did. They uses to potty train their babies very, very early because when they were on the move, they could not afford to stop every time the baby decided it needed to go to the bathroom and they did not have Pampers back then. The baby was trained to go when the parent told it to go (which of course was quite often). That's right! The baby was trained to respond to verbal commands. Imagine that!
The point being, anything you can train a dog to do, you can more easily train a child to do. All that is necessary is the proper technique and sufficient patients and motivation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by Mr Jack
The courts don't tend to throw folks in jail for reasonable chastisement.

This is really a very seious problem. Here in the state of Ohio, there is even a leagal defense league to protect innocent families that are being harrassed by social workers. ( http://www.fdno.org/ ) Some parents have had their children taken away or done jail time because they spanked (not abused) their children. These parents were found guilty due to social workers, lawyers, judges, and police officiers lack of leagal knowledge in this area.

 

[1Way]

Frugalmom

Here is my post from the other thread that you responded to in this thread in post #54 so that everyone can see what I actually posted including the example at the bottom that you ignored.


QUOTE

Frugalmom

I agree with Clete. Where do we get the idea that children must understand their "training" ,,, that their "parents" gives them? Understanding the reason for punishment is another thing altogether, but according to scripture, training up a child is nowhere taught that the child must have intellectual understanding of their parents "training" techniques. The parents are the governors over the child, it is not an equal rights, equal agreement, mutual understanding, situation.

I would like to point out one thing that you said, and what I read from the book web page to demonstrate that I believe your feelings of anger may have gotten the best of you. Human emotions can sometimes effectively short-circuit our reasoning and objectivity. Consider.

• QUOTE
  He would never convince me that it's OK to let a newborn cry just to try and prove to it that crying (which is their ONLY way of communication) is counterproductive. A newborn or an infant are not capable of understanding these things. They know they are hungry or need a clean diaper, and it's the parent's job to be there to take care of them, not to abandon them.
  END QUOTE

You present the case saying "it's OK to let a newborn cry just to try and prove to it that crying (which is their ONLY way of communication) is counterproductive." You even argue by appealing to the baby's natural need to communicate by crying about urgent matters that only the parent can take care of. Yet contrary to your portrayal of what they are teaching, this is what the book actually says with numbered callouts added.

• QUOTE
  ("To Train Up A Child", first chapter, pp 8-9 said)
  (1) As a mother attempts to lower her child into the crib, he stiffens, takes a deep breath, and bellows. The battle for control has begun in earnest. (2) Someone is going to be conditioned. Either the tenderhearted mother will cave in to the child’s self-centered demands (training the child to get his way by crying) or he will be allowed to cry (thus learning that crying is counterproductive). (3) Crying because of genuine physical need is the infant’s only voice to the outside world, but crying in order to manipulate others into constant servitude should never be rewarded. Otherwise, you will reinforce the child’s growing self-centeredness, which will eventually become socially intolerable.
  END QUOTE

(1) This situation that they have in mind is NOT when the baby needs a diaper changed or any other genuine need. It's when the child simply wants to have it's way no matter what (selfishness). It may constantly want mommy's attention, it does not want to be left alone. So every day, probably every hour, mommy needs to pay attention to other things, go to the bathroom, cook, eat, clean house, etc., so who wins? The will of the baby or the will of the mother?

(2) Does a baby know that it does not need to be held and pandered to all the time? It is precisely because of this lack of understanding and appropriateness that parents should instill self discipline in their babies so that the parents can attend to the things that they must in order to effectively function. Think of the double frustration of twins or the quadruple frustration of quadruplets if every child was the winner in this exact battle! If the children win at the earliest ages that their will dictates what happens simply by screaming loud enough, then the mother and the children will be miserable because it is not possible to pander after the constant whims of each child all the time. Same issue is at stake if there are 1 or 6 babies, love them all the same, one or 6, train self restraint.

(3) And here is the clarification and is quite different from what you claimed they were promoting. They realize and promote that a baby's cry is the only voice to the outside world concerning authentic needs. That is NOT what this example of "counterproductive" crying is about. Instead, the child is being trained over the futility of simply acting selfish.

A vivid example of a baby's
selfish attention getting game
I've seen a baby who could not yet walk or talk, he was in between crawling but not yet at steady-standing stage. Suddenly he would cry out in a loud and high pitched scream as though in great or painful distress! :shocked: And then immediately stop crying! The baby's face was not towards the people in the room (he was working from stealth as he had no one's direct attention), and then he paused and slowly looked around to see if he gained the attention from the entire room that he expected and desired. And of course he did, everyone was completely silent and looking at him wondering what terrible thing just happened.

And then he smiled and laughed in a way that only a little baby could. It was quite the site, I will never forget it. Next the entire room was in laughter.
:darwinsm:
He caught us all off guard and got us laughing upon the pure idea of spontaneous interpersonal interest and contagious joy. He became the complete comedian that evening. But did the baby know when to stop, or how disturbing these unwarranted cries can be? No, so thankfully the parents corrected the child. That was an advanced game that child played, younger babies play more basic attention getting games.

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. He's a very busy man.

END QUOTE

 

[1Way]

Frugalmom - I gave you evidence that babies that are crawling and are just beginning to stand are more than capable of being selfish. You call that being "spoiled", and you say that babies cannot be spoiled. But you did not respond to my point which clearly demonstrates that babies can be clearly spoiled at very young ages.

You were wrong for saying the following:

• They promote torturing a toddler
  
  These people are obviously a couple of sadistic nuts who shouldn't be around ANY children.
  
  other things I have read and heard about this book are nothing short of abuse.
  
  and you contradictorily mischaracterized what they taught about responding to a baby's crying 1) if it's simply from selfishness, then to not respond so as to make that sort of crying counterproductive, and 2) tha if it is for a legitimate physical need, then of course you do not neglect the child. But you confounded these two and made it seem like they were trying to abandon the child's crying regardless of why it was crying.

And I think you are wrong for not having stood corrected over these inaccurate and arguably slanderous statements. I did not suggest, nor did the book pretend to suggest that infants/babies should have no need for being cuddling and physical affection. It is loving and good for a parent to put their baby in a baby: crib, swing or seat, blanket area etc., and to expect that the baby will need to learn to accept these appropriate breaks from being constantly held and cuddled.

There is a point where you know your child, you know that they are perfectly fine in your arms when you are holding them, they are not hungry, they are happy and well taken care of, but when you need to answer the phone or the door or cook a meal or go to the bathroom or whatever you need to do without the baby being in your arms, that baby needs to learn that these breaks from physical attention are not worth having a crying fit over. It's an issue of the will that is at contest, the baby will not become psychologically stunted for life if the parent cooks dinner or whatever while the baby is not in their arms all the time. If I was a stay at home parent, I would WANT to hold my child 24/7. It would give me the greatest sense of love and bonding to be able to do that. But, now and then, and especially as the child would get older, when I would need to do something that requires me to set the baby down, I would expect that a healthy baby can learn to cope with such situations, even if they prefer being held all the time.

You said that you really like Bob Enyart for the bible teaching, but now you do not support BEL because of this book. So you have judged against him, and worse you have done that without giving opportunity to explain his views first. And the fact that you are unwilling to seek his explanation is another indicator that you are not treating this issue with fair objectivity.

If you are ready to stand up to these issues without altering what is being said, I'm sure Bob will be good enough to answer your questions and complaints. In the mean time, your judgments and mischaracterizations have be exposed. It would be great for you to stop ignoring them and stand corrected. Plus, it would be great to hear your response to Clete's point that dogs and cats can be house and potty trained at a very young age, and yet babies are way smarter than these animals. In contrast you keep saying that babies can not understand parental training.

As to your comment about child verses baby in the train up a child teaching from scripture. When a mother gives birth, she gives birth to a baby, it's is not a pup or a kitten or a chick, it's a baby boy or girl. The bible need not need to use the word "infant" or "new born" just because you presuppose it should. There is nothing sadistic in training a baby to stay away from things that can greatly harm them since we cannot possibly be there to watch over them and keep them out of trouble every single second.

 

[Flipper]

Zakath:

From what I've read here so far, it seems what the book does is use behaviorist techniques (behavior modification) applied to babies.

This particular one is based on the observation that humans tend to try to dissociate pain and painful experiences away from those who also provide comfort and food. That's why the baby focussed on the switch, not his parents.

In adults, a variant of this is seen when military boot camp graduates dissociate the physical traumas of boot camp from their instructors or when sexually abused children will not attribute abuse to clergy or other authority figures. In other circumstances it is similar to "Stockholm Syndrome".

It's a survival mechanism to keep the self-identity from shattering under pressure of cognitive dissonance. And of course, like any other human mechanism it is not 100% effective for 100% of the population.

That's where knowing your child and experience at childrearing (i.e. consulting grandparents, older parents, etc.) come in to play.

So technically this approach could work quite effectively without inflicting any lasting damage on the child's development? Is the fact that it is not widely practised purely societal, or is it because it's a high risk strategy?

In other circumstances it is similar to "Stockholm Syndrome".

When I first heard about Stockholm Syndrome I was extremely skeptical and disbelieving of the whole concept. But after spending some time learning more, I now love it.

 

[Flipper]

The sibbie:

Are you even for spanking at all?

Somewhat. I think all kids are different and there's no `one size fits all' discipline. So I don't think spanking should be banned or anything - it's up to the individual parents.

My wife and I decided not to spank our kid. But to be honest I have yet to face a situation with her when I might have thought it necessary. She's a pretty sensible and well-behaved child, really. It's very rare that I have had to raise my voice to her.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Flipper

Zakath:



So technically this approach could work quite effectively without inflicting any lasting damage on the child's development?

That's the theory, yes.

Of course one of the side effects might be producing more people like Art Deco, Sozo, or Enyart... :chuckle:

Is the fact that it is not widely practised purely societal, or is it because it's a high risk strategy?

My best guess would be strong social bias against wide-spread adoption of behaviorism techniques. There was a big uproar in the sixties and early seventies over competing theories of childrearing. Benjamin Spock's more laizzes faire style of child rearing won out over a stricter behaviorist model...

... oddly enough, many people just couldn't bring themselves to treat their children like little domestic animals...

When I first heard about Stockholm Syndrome I was extremely skeptical and disbelieving of the whole concept. But after spending some time learning more, I now love it.

"Love it"? ...OK... :think:

 

[Flipper]

Love it"? ...OK

It was a joke, see? Well, of sorts, anyway.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Flipper

It was a joke, see? Well, of sorts, anyway.

I gots one word for yoos, "smilies".
:chuckle:

 

[Nineveh]

Just 2 cents here...

If Mr. Enyart were selling Dr. Spock, I'd feel funny about supporting him, too. Obviously frugalmom feels strongly enough about the ideas presented in Mr. and Mrs. Pearls's book as to not patronize him. I'm the same way with Amazon.

***

Zakath,
"... oddly enough, many people just couldn't bring themselves to treat their children like little domestic animals..."

LOL my grandpa said Spock's book was good for a paddle! Anyway, I guess the pendulum will swing. I think we have 40 years of society to judge if the majority chose the right "method", or not. To me of course, I think they chose poorly, happens all the time, en masse, even. Personally, I can't see where using a "willow switch" on fingers once or twice is a worse way than using a willow switch 5,000 times + harsh loud words.

We all train our children. I find it similar to the concept of "Judgement". We all do it, it's pretty much divided on the basis of how.

 

[1Way]

Poly

Wow, your post 63 is most excellent! :thumb:

I'm starting to think that Frugalmom does not sincerely like Bob Enyart as a Bible teacher because of her comment about the tree! There is no way in good faith I could make the argument she made and say that I respect Bob Enyart's teachings over such a thing.

And you know she can't feel good about judging a person without hearing them out first.

Did you catch my example of a young baby who was just starting to be able to stand up fairly well? It's in my post 89 and is a crack up , it's at the bottom of that post. Young babies understand attention getting, and our response to them VERY well.

And you are so right about the baby "arching his back" and crying upon being set it in the crib, the battle that is being drawn is so clear that it is "only" about the selfish will of the baby and not some natural physical need, that I think one could argue that you would have to be willfully ignorant to misunderstand that example as being as frugalmom stated, that they simply wanted to train away the baby's crying into it being counterproductive, as opposed to only when the baby throws a fit just because it is not getting it's way.

If I ever get a chance to father my own child, I would want to hold it all the time, and keep a book of memories and hopes in my heart for that child. ... It is because we care for our children that you train them to stay away from things that could easily hurt them. Babies are smarter than puppies, they are not incapable of understanding the implications of their own attempts to get their own way as well as the parents response when they try. It is so silly to think that the baby who arches the back and cries out when being placed in a crib, is somehow "NOT" smart enough to know what is going on.

Something tells me that Frugalmom has a hidden agenda that she has not yet revealed, or conversely, she is hiding something like maybe she was (or is) a family services or friend of the court social worker of some kind, or simply is someone that serves to take babies away from parents who "train" or "spank" as the bible alllows for and teaches. Or maybe she was close to someone who was physically abusive to a baby or something like that. I hope she learns to get over what sounds like pretty liberal teachings on child rearing.

 

[Brellix]

Originally posted by 1Way

Poly

Wow, your post 63 is most excellent! :thumb:

Be careful not to break your arm patting other posters on the back.

Originally posted by 1Way
I'm starting to think that Frugalmom does not sincerely like Bob Enyart as a Bible teacher because of her comment about the tree! There is no way in good faith I could make the argument she made and say that I respect Bob Enyart's teachings over such a thing.

You are starting to formulate all sorts of conspiracies about frugalmom because she happens to disagree with you on this issue. You so readily bring up judging below. Don't you believe that you have judged frugalmom from a wider perspective than her opinion on this issue? It seems so to me.

Originally posted by 1Way
And you know she can't feel good about judging a person without hearing them out first.

Hearing him out? Frugalmom simply based her opinion on the "fact" that Mr. Enyart sells and supports this book on his website. It is not frugalmom's duty to track down Mr. Enyart and have him explain why he supports this book. If Mr. Enyart would like to come to this thread and post his opinion, I am sure that Frugalmom would read it. I know Mr. Enyart is a busy man, but so am I for that matter. I have a very small post count here myself, but if Mr. Enyart can devote enough time to TOL to participate in a battle royal, I think he can spare a few minutes here. And if he cannot, then that's ok too. I won't judge him for choosing not to reply here just as frugalmom shouldn't be judged for not wanting to appear on his talk show.

From what I have seen, she has in no way judged his character as a man, pastor, Bible teacher, or anything else for that matter. In fact, you sir have been far more judgemental of Frugalmom in formulating some of these wild theories like your "social worker with a hidden agenda" comments below. Calm down, take a breath, and know that a person's opinion of another's stand on a particular issue, does not constitute a complete judgement of one's character or agenda.

Originally posted by 1Way
Did you catch my example of a young baby who was just starting to be able to stand up fairly well? It's in my post 89 and is a crack up , it's at the bottom of that post. Young babies understand attention getting, and our response to them VERY well.

Again, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Originally posted by 1Way
And you are so right about the baby "arching his back" and crying upon being set it in the crib, the battle that is being drawn is so clear that it is "only" about the selfish will of the baby and not some natural physical need, that I think one could argue that you would have to be willfully ignorant to misunderstand that example as being as frugalmom stated, that they simply wanted to train away the baby's crying into it being counterproductive, as opposed to only when the baby throws a fit just because it is not getting it's way.

If I ever get a chance to father my own child, I would want to hold it all the time, and keep a book of memories and hopes in my heart for that child. ... It is because we care for our children that you train them to stay away from things that could easily hurt them. Babies are smarter than puppies, they are not incapable of understanding the implications of their own attempts to get their own way as well as the parents response when they try. It is so silly to think that the baby who arches the back and cries out when being placed in a crib, is somehow "NOT" smart enough to know what is going on.

I disagree. A newborn's behavior is all about basic needs. If newborns were smart enough to understand the concepts of selfishness and manipulation, then they would not have to cry to communicate a need. Instead, they would tell you what was wrong with them. The baby arches its back because it wants to be with its mother. It's that simple. There is no deep manipulative act of selfishness at work. The baby has gotten used to being close to its mother for the nine months prior to its birth and it instinctively yearns for that same feeling of comfort and security.

To all who believe this newborn manipulation theory, do you remember any examples of trying to manipulate your parents at that age? Seeing that the newborn is so smart and cunning, surely it could remember such an event. I know that most people can remember attempts at parental manipulation between say ages 5-10, but why can't we remember those events from say our second week of life? :think:

Originally posted by 1Way
Something tells me that Frugalmom has a hidden agenda that she has not yet revealed, or conversely, she is hiding something like maybe she was (or is) a family services or friend of the court social worker of some kind, or simply is someone that serves to take babies away from parents who "train" or "spank" as the bible alllows for and teaches. Or maybe she was close to someone who was physically abusive to a baby or something like that. I hope she learns to get over what sounds like pretty liberal teachings on child rearing.

Now this is judgement without cause and pure nonsense. Not once did frugalmom make such a ridiculous claim regarding Mr. Enyart and you know it. She only disagreed with his support of the book. Is it so hard for you to accept her opinion without formulating wild conspiracies about hidden liberal agendas? I'm not saying that it is so, but surely you can see that it appears to be about defending Mr. Enyart more so than her stand on this topic of discussion.



p.s. If the Enyart faithful here at TOL see my opinion on this matter as a reason for a 50 post gang-flame, accept my apology in advance for not having the time to respond to everyone.



Brellix

 

[frugalmom]

I don't really have time to post and will reply to the rest as I can, but just to address this lunacy real quick:

Originally posted by 1Way
I'm starting to think that Frugalmom does not sincerely like Bob Enyart as a Bible teacher because of her comment about the tree! There is no way in good faith I could make the argument she made and say that I respect Bob Enyart's teachings over such a thing.

That's not true. But even if it were, what would it matter if I didn't like him as a Bible teacher??? Not every Christian is going to agree with you and Bob on everything you know.

Originally posted by 1Way Something tells me that Frugalmom has a hidden agenda that she has not yet revealed, or conversely, she is hiding something like maybe she was (or is) a family services or friend of the court social worker of some kind, or simply is someone that serves to take babies away from parents who "train" or "spank" as the bible alllows for and teaches. Or maybe she was close to someone who was physically abusive to a baby or something like that. I hope she learns to get over what sounds like pretty liberal teachings on child rearing.

If anyone wants to know why some posters use terms like "Enyartian" and call you cult members.....well there ya go!!
All I did was say I wasn't supporting Bob anymore because of a controversial book he sells, and that means I must have a hidden agenda......HA! Grow up 1WAY!!!

For the record.... I also don't support Billy Graham anymore, as of a long time ago.......and don't get me started on Nestle!

And if anyone is as stupid as 1WAY and thinks that because I don't agree with him and Bob 100% means I am a social worker or whatever other asinine assumptions he made in the above quote, you are wrong.

 

[SOTK]

Originally posted by frugalmom

I don't really have time to post and will reply to the rest as I can, but just to address this lunacy real quick:



That's not true. But even if it were, what would it matter if I didn't like him as a Bible teacher??? Not every Christian is going to agree with you and Bob on everything you know.




If anyone wants to know why some posters use terms like "Enyartian" and call you cult members.....well there ya go!!
All I did was say I wasn't supporting Bob anymore because of a controversial book he sells, and that means I must have a hidden agenda......HA! Grow up 1WAY!!!

For the record.... I also don't support Billy Graham anymore, as of a long time ago.......and don't get me started on Nestle!

And if anyone is as stupid as 1WAY and thinks that because I don't agree with him and Bob 100% means I am a social worker or whatever other asinine assumptions he made in the above quote, you are wrong.

:BRAVO:

I wouldn't spend another second even considering anything 1WAY has to say!

SOTK