[ArmsOfLove]

By the way...the article is quite hilarious some times. "I conducted an informal research...". Sounds convincing, does it? And how about this: "All presidents of the United States, including Obama, were spanked as children, as were nearly all senators, congressmen, and military commanders". I don't understand what's exactly the point. Are the presidents, the senators and congressmen such great role models? Or does M. Pearl try to say: "if you wan't your little boy to become the next president or a senator at least, spank him!" Or is it a message to the kids themselfes? "Johnny, would you like to become a President of the United States, just like Obama? Well, that's cool, Johnny my boy, and if you are properly spanked, who knows how far you can get."

I was going to ask when Pearl started referring to himself as a spanker - but HL already addressed the issue of his division between spankings and training And since he defines "spankings" as "what happens when training isn't done correctly" why on earth is he defending spankings in the first place? Let alone saying that all presidents were spanked (something I'm not sure is accurate - I think I've read something about that but cannot remember where )

And, basically, if he is saying that lots of people go on to become President et al even with spankings then isn't he undermining the argument for early "training"? Why bother if your kid can become President without it?

Except it's the early training he believes prepares children to be "without sin so that they are able to be saved." Oh yeah! that pesky heresy! What a way to bury that

Originally Posted by rjy9343

Really? I had no idea that this debate has been happening for so long.I thought it started sometime in the late eighties. I have always heard that it was standard during the fifties and sixties and of course that is why kids were not the little heathens they are today. Of course, I grew up in the rural South, so it is entirely possible that it was the case in my little corner.
However you slice it, long memories are vital to stopping lies and keeping truth alive.

If you haven't read it already you might want to grab a copy of "Spare The Child." It talks about the long history of debate over this issue within the Church

Originally Posted by ShepherdsWife

Nothing is new. I personally am pretty sure it was discussed in every generation just sadly the GCM style hasn't progressed as much as the punitive...what's worse is it is largely due to Christians when it should be the opposite


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most people over the generations either just went silent and didn't draw attention to themselves or, more sadly, LEFT THE Church! So the larger issue isn't that non-spankers haven't had the discussion as vocally or as long. The larger issue is that non-spankers have left or chosen not to embrace the Church at all. The issue of spanking has become an OBSTACLE to the Gospel message!

And when someone who has done a great deal of that obstacle building suddenly wants to cite all the secular studies (yes, wrongly cite, fake statistics, etc) then I lose even more respect for him as his entire doctrine is based on being in OPPOSITION to the secular EVERYTHING. So which is it? What new twist does MP put on his "truth" and how many times will we see it twisted around like a serpent using great skill based on whatever the current criticism is to him.

He's not a teacher. He's more like a magician. Maybe even more like the great Wizard of Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the skillfully and desperately woven curtain.