Originally posted by Elaine
Nor do I. Please remember that I was using it as an example...
When I said that Christians are not under the law and thus the verse you cited may not apply to us you said:
Originally posted by Elaine
Originally posted by Elaine
Definitely not. But that doesn't justify murder, for a quick example. We are simply under a "higher law."
It seemed to me that you implied that since the Law tells us not to murder and it's obvious we shouldn't murder despite being not being under the Law that we should also follow the verse from the Law you previously mentioned. Thus you appeared to give both moral instructions equal or at least similiar weight. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Elaine
"Being involved" with the kids is difficult while still sending them to public school.
I don't believe so.
Originally posted by Elaine
Then, too, where I live you have to pay tax money to the schools whether you send your kids to them or not. :down:
This is because we live in a representative republic. At some point our representatives came to the conclusion that the idea of an equal chance at education for all was a noble goal and the best way to do it was to implement a public school system. Noone voted them out of office at the next election, so the system was put into place and we're stuck with it until a majority of voters decide they're sick of it and elect people who think as they do. Even if you don't like it, I think that this is a "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" situation. Some people don't believe in putting money into national defense, but I don't think they should be exempt from paying taxes just because they disagree with where some of that tax money goes.
Originally posted by Elaine
How far into the first five years of a child's life can the child learn morals from its parents?
I know of a few studies on that subject but won't bring them up lest you question the integrity of those researchers, too.
I'll just say that having observed how parents can turn their kids into quiet, obedient children or little brats by the age of 5 I believe parents can have a huge impact on how their children will behave during those early years and that influence would arguably extend into moral spheres as well. Still, for more of my opinions on the age children should start going to public schools look a few responses below this one.
Originally posted by Elaine
Don't forget homework time in the evenings.
Parents can do their children's homework with them! This gives them an excellent chance to review what their children are learning in school and tell them what they think about those things. I'd hope even parents who home-school go over their children's homework with them, especially when the kids are young.
Originally posted by Elaine
Yes, the teacher should be fired, but, as far as we know, she wasn't.
Then the parents should work to get that teacher fired or at least have their children put in another class.
Originally posted by Elaine
As a homeschooled student, it's not that I haven't had exposure to conflicting beliefs, but that I have been taught about what was wrong with them instead of just being handed a Bible and shoved right into the middle of them without knowing what to do. There isn't much opportunity for that teaching when the kids go to the public schools. My dad teaches us about the Bible daily. I wouldn't get that if I wasn't homeschooled.
Maybe YOU wouldn't. I did, as did my best friend. I think it is good for older kids to evaluate differing beliefs for themselves, not just be told what's wrong with them. For the record, I don't believe younger children(under twelve or so) should be exposed to much of the nonsense one finds in public school. I think the government should use some of the money it spends on elementary schools too help subsidize parents to make it easier for those of limited means to teach their children at home. That way the kids would have time to benefit from their parents' moral instruction and be more prepared to deal with some of the negative things they may find in the public schools while still being able to learn from the positive ones.
Originally posted by Elaine
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with our discussion.
Some teachers are bad. Some postal workers are bad. This doesn't mean the institutions to which they belong are bad. That is like saying that since a very few home-schooling parents don't send their children to public school so as to be able to hide the beatings they give them that home-schooling is bad.
Originally posted by Elaine
What for? Hasn't God's Word already told you; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."?
I'm not sure whether God was being literal when he said how many "days" it took Him to create the Earth and all the living things on it. Thus, there is some possibility that there was time for macroevolution to happen and that God guided the animals to evolve as they did. I don't feel qualified to decide if that is how it happened or not. I unequivocally do Not believe Humans evolved from lesser life forms, however.
Originally posted by Elaine
A widely held theory which contradicts the Bible, by the way.
Arguing that with me would be rather like me arguing with you that children must be taught evolution because it is definitely true(not something I believe, BTW.At least, not the definitely). Or, in other words...:bang:
Originally posted by Elaine
At any rate, they can not teach them very thoroughly. No, homeschooling will not fix everything, but it will allow parents to teach their children as they should and to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
I believe they can do that on Sundays and after school.
Originally posted by Elaine
Thanks for all this "evidence" you've been digging up for me, but--do you notice anything wrong with it? It's rather vague, for one thing. "Adolescents report"...What adolescents? They give us no idea about where they got the information or how large a group of adolescents was polled (assuming that's how they got it). For all we know, they could have made the whole thing up. That makes it about as useful, but not quite, as anecdotal evidence...:chuckle:
:sigh: Sociological researchers are often vague, I'm afraid. It's because popular sociological theories change every other minute and being vague makes it easier to explain wh there stance changes so easily to the flavor of the week. They weren't sure before but now they're on the right track! :nono:
Originally posted by Elaine
Despite your own inductive logic? :noway:
I'm sorry I didn't make my point clearer. Inductive reasoning is poor and easily subject to misconceptions. I was trying to criticize the obvious inductive conclusion and should have said how my deductive reasoning came to MY conclusion.
I'll give an example to illustrate why I dislike inductive reasoning.
Note: inductive is making a general conclusion from specific pieces of evidence. Deductive reasoning is starting with a general proposition and attempting to make conclusions about a specific instance.
Let us pretend that I'm overweight and wish to change that. I have three aquaintances all of whom are thin and in very good shape. I also have aquaintances that are overweight and in poor health. I notice that all the healthy ones eat whole wheat bread and that none of the unhealthy ones do. I assume that eating whole wheat bread will make me healthy even if I don't change any other part of my diet or exercise habits. I am being short sighted and not considering that other aspects of the diet and other habits of the healthy aquaintances are as or more important. I ignore the possibility that there may be healthy people who do not eat whole wheat bread. I can't see the forest for the trees.
Now, my deductive reasoning being applied to the influence of public schools versus parents when it comes to morals.
My general proposition: That parental influence is more important than that of the schools.
Specifics: I know many people who went to public schools and are still very moral. I also know(through TOL) many who were home-schooled and are very moral.
The common factor: Good parents who taught them right.
Complementary specifics: I know many people who went to public schools and are not moral. I know a few(one in particular) who were home-schooled and are not very moral.
The common factor: Poor parents who never really tried to instill good morals in their children.
Ergo, it seems to me that the deciding factor in how moral a child will become is the parents, not the schools. Parents who have an avid interest in teaching morals to their children may be(probaly are) more likely to home-school, but that does not mean that the schooling is the deciding factor. People who eat whole wheat bread may pay more attention to there health than those who don't(on average), but that does not mean that the bread is the deciding factor in health. This is why I believe as I do. I apologize for rambling and thank you for having the patience to read my only semi-coherent thoughts.
