Biblical reasons NOT to homeschool!
Mark and Bev Tindall
http://www.brandonstaggs.com/biblical-reasons-to-home-school.html which is
typical of most Christian fundamentalist home schoolers' erroneous beliefs
on education ...mainly based on Old Testament proof verses.
Those who want a background to my reading for this critique, written in one
sitting tonight, would do well to read the works of Plato (on Socrates),
Paulo Friere, John Holt, Maria Monetssori, Rudolph Steiner, Jerome S Bruner,
E B Castle, Elizabeth Lawrence, Edwin Judge, Brian V Hill, William Barclay,
Rousseau, Dewey, A S Neil, R S Peters, Ivan Illich and the rest of the gang
that contributed in the past to the art of good educational practice in the
21st century. This brief overview of past greats is not even considered by
most home schoolers who erroneously consider themselves more capable of
"edjakatin" their children than a professional teacher.
Fundamentalists should also read ...and reread ...and reread again ... John
Shelby Spong's "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism" and Peter Cameron's
"Fundamentalism & Freedom".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Offered here are just a handful of verses from God's word
This is one of the reasons homeschoolers should be very careful! Home
schooling is dominated by rabid fundamentalists who do not value learning
for the sake of learning. Brandon thinks the bible is the "Word of God'
when in fact it is an ancient collection of books about people's experience
of God. If one reads all the bible it clearly states that Jesus is the Word
of God (John 1: 1) Such verses seem not to be read by literalists. For a
fuller treatment on why the bible is NOT God's Word read John Shelby Spong's
"Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism" - an international best seller.
> There are hundreds of reasons to reject the usage of the government
education >system, including social, moral, academic, ethical, political,
and "religious" reasons. >For a Christian, especially a Christian who values
the authority of Scripture, God's own >words on the matter should settle the
issue.
This is much the same type of introduction that Christian School advocates
give for their system to be the "one and only Christian way" to educate
children. It is simply not true in any aspect whatsoever. This is an
unsubstantiated biased claim based on subjective opinion on bible proof
verses taken out of context.
The word "school" does not appear in either the Old or New Testament and
therefore the bible cannot be used to back any particular school system.
Early Christians sent their children to classical schools. Educational
concerns about the classical schools (primary or secondary) Christians sent
their children to was not an issue in any of the New Testament letters. The
letters also fail to recognise anything concerned with church as schooling.
As William Barclay correctly pointed out:
"The New Testament lays down no kind of curriculum of training for the
child; the New Testament knows nothing about religious education and nothing
about schools; for the New Testament is certain that the only training which
really matters is given within the home, and that there are no teachers so
effective for good and evil as parents." (William Barclay, Educational
Ideals in the Ancient World, Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House: 1974., p.
236)
That is NOT to say that parents are naturally good at teaching academic
subjects! While professional teachers are best at teaching facts, concepts
and skills the changing of attitudes and value inculcation is best done by
parents who are not trained in teaching facts, concepts and skills. Use the
people best suited for what you want to achieve. It should be noted that
most home schoolers have no formal teaching qualifications whatsoever. It
is like refusing to send your child to a qualified professional surgeon to
have an operation and performing the task yourself on your kitchen table
because "as a parent I know the child better ... and surgery is only using a
knife ...which I use to cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!" DIY
surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling.
In the 4th century the Emperor Julian challenged the Christians to take
their children out of the classical schools, where other gods were taught,
and to retreat to their own schools where they could be taught out of
"Matthew and Luke". He was determined to force on Christians the educational
consequences of the New Testament. The Emperor Julian uses the word
"anetos" to describe the children of Christian parents ... it means
"mindless". He suggested that they be cured by an Hellenistic education.
However, children were not penalised because of their parent's beliefs and
the classical schools remained open to all people. Two people named
Apollinaris (father and son) converted the bible into pseudo-classical
literature with the Pentateuch as a Homeric epic and the gospels as Platonic
dialogues because Julian compelled Christians to to work from texts written
in sub-classical Greek.
In subsequent centuries Christians developed a quasi-educational system to
teach the New Testament but this did not come into conflict with classical
schooling in any practical manner. basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia,
wrote "To Young Men on the Advantages of Greek Literature" which suggested
that pupils need not be corrupted by their work, but the onus was upon
parents (and also secondarily teachers) within the church to train them in
Christian belief after school.
The historical fact is that Christians educated their children fully within
the secular system for the first four centuries after Christ's death in
spite of any contradiction that might have posed. They contradicted any
negative influence by biblical training at church and home.
Alternate schooling by fundamentalists, including home schooling, is a
reaction of their intimidated by pluralism and modernity. Jesus speaks of
being salt and light in the world not of running away from it. There would
be far fewer home schools if the world was stuck back in the 1950s where
fundamentalists wish to drag everybody.
> So here we attempt to explain a conviction we have through the only
objective way >possible: Holy Scripture.
Actually this is a very biased way which only works if you are a rabid
fundamentalist. Other Christians, like myself, do take the bible as the
final word on anything. A Christian is meant to use their God given brain.
This explanation is also not useful for Moslems, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists,
Agnostics, etc etc etc. It ONLY works for fundamentalists ... just like
creation pseudo-science it is to be totally rejected as the subjective
opinion of fanatics.
Universal schooling is a modern invention and a culturally determined
phenomenon. As a result direct appeal to the bible as "proof" for a
schooling system is inadmissible.
The bible uses terms associated with the teaching ministry within a church
and educational metaphors but these cannot be honestly transposed to support
any Christian schooling concept. The Greeks had discussed education in much
the same terms as we do today by the time of Jesus ... but this is NOt what
the New Testament mentions.
The sacrifice that pleases God is that which engages the mind. (Romans
12:1).
> a heathen school
They are PUBLIC schools open to all, not "heathen" schools .... which is a
pejorative term. Should one also refer to home schooling as "home skooling"
in the same manner?
There are many well educated professional teachers working in the public
schools who are Christians. I was one of them!
It saddens me that there are so many Christian parents in home schooling who
refuse to critically reflect on their choice of homeschooling and who
constantly demonise anyone who disagrees with them. I have been referred to
as a "troll" by people far less qualified to speak on the matter of
education and who have far less understanding of the bible.
Furthermore, there seems to be no professional reading of any high quality
done by homeschoolers. Having refused to even consider criticism their
refuge is in poorly written fundamentalist "books" which no worthy academic
educational journal would consider publishing. As a result they are left to
wander in a sea of mutual ignorance. It is not their ignorance that
worries me as much as the damage they do to innocent children who deserve
much better than the amateurish witchdoctor type "edjakashun" of home
schooling.
****************************
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f40...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[]
> Furthermore, there seems to be no professional reading of any high quality
> done by homeschoolers. Having refused to even consider criticism their
> refuge is in poorly written fundamentalist "books" which no worthy
academic
> educational journal would consider publishing. As a result they are left
to
> wander in a sea of mutual ignorance. It is not their ignorance that
> worries me as much as the damage they do to innocent children who deserve
> much better than the amateurish witchdoctor type "edjakashun" of home
> schooling.
Here is the first part of a paper I wrote for a course a few years ago and
posted to this ng. You can find the rest by doing an advance google search
on my name with "Erasmus" in the find message field. I think it has some
bearing on some of the issues you raise.
Jayne
===================================================
I finished my paper for my course and I thought that it might be
interesting for some of you, so I'm posting it. I'm dividing it up
into several posts to make it more manageable. This first part is
background. I did not include this when I handed my paper in because
I ended up going into more depth than appropriate. The stuff in
parentheses is for me to make my footnotes. Just ignore it.
----------------------------------------
Recent years have seen the dramatic growth of a phenomenon known as
"homeschooling" in which parents educate their children at home rather
than send them to school. For some parents the decision to do this is
rooted in their Christian faith. It is also rooted in history, for
Christian education in the home is not new. This paper briefly
establishes this historical background and examines how sixteenth
century humanism influenced this aspect of Christian education. It
focuses on the contributions of Erasmus and More because:
"Erasmus was the most important and influential educational writer of the
sixteenth century. His ideas about education and schools, about
language, about the nature and nurture of children radiated out to
his friends and fellow humanists to influence their views and
often to be influenced by their suggestions and practices. Among
these was the great English humanist and statesman Thomas More."
(Sowards, 103)
Examining both Erasmus and More, allows one to see the reciprocal
relationship between theory and practice. Erasmus represents the theory,
for he wrote about it extensively. As Hogrefe states: "The ideas
expressed by Erasmus in two works De ratione studii and De pueris
instituendis ... might be considered the core of the educational ideas
held by the men of the More circle." (Hogrefe, 170) In addition to
these, Erasmus wrote educational works on specific topics such as
letter-writing, pronunciation of Latin and Greek, and writing style. In
contrast, "More wrote no treatises on education" (Hogrefe, 163) the way
that Erasmus did. Instead, More lived out these ideas in educating his
family. Thus he represents the practice.
The idea of parents teaching and passing on faith to their children is
present from the beginning of Christianity. We find references to it in
Scripture. Paul wrote to Timothy, "I am reminded of your sincere faith,
a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice
and now, I am sure dwells in you." (2 Tim 1:5 RSV) In the letter to the
Ephesians, we find the exhortation for parents to bring children up "in
the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4) We know that
teaching must have occurred but so little about methodology that O.C.
Edwards says that "the New Testament has virtually noting to say about
the way that Christian children were educated in the faith" (Westerhoff
43) Similarly, the role of Christian parents was merely mentioned in
passing, in the Didache. It says, "Do not neglect your responsibility to
your son or your daughter, but from their youth you shall teach them to
revere God" (4:9 "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, commonly Called
the Didache" from Cyril C. Richardson, ed and trans., Early Christian
Fathers (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), p171-179)
This absence of detail about educating children is understandable
because the emphasis of the early Jesus movement was on adult
conversions. This emphasis continued into the fourth century. The Church
educated adults through the catechumenate process preceding baptism and
with homilies after they had been initiated. However, the practice of
infant baptism had begun to grow and there are some examples of
instructions to parents on how to raise their children as Christians.
John Chrysostom's On Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up
Their Children "shows that the bishop of Constantinople expects the
primary religious education of children to take place in the home,"
including scripture stories and moral instruction.( Sawicki 131) Also,
Jerome wrote a letter to Laeta about raising her daughter Paula. This
was a wealthy family and his advice includes instructions on choice of
tutor and nurse. Even so, he stresses the parental role, saying, "You
must yourself be her teacher, a model on which she may form her childish
conduct." (340) He also suggests that Laeta can fulfill her
responsibility by sending Paula to him for educating, (344)
foreshadowing the development of monastery schools. (letter 107, S. L
Greenslade, ed., Early Latin Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press 1956), 332-344.)
In the following centuries, the adult catecumenate gradually
disappeared. As Milton Gatch says, "No longer were those seeking baptism
adults, except on the frontiers where mass baptisms of defeated and
converted Germanic and Slavic tribes occurred. Rather the custom of
infant baptism constantly gained ground throughout Europe" (Gatch in
Westerhoff, 81) Unfortunately, "no provision had been made for the
training of these infants in the fundamental of the faith after their
baptism" (Gatch 88) although an understanding grew that it was the
godparents' responsibility to teach the creed and Lord's Prayer.
This was inadequate. By the seventh century the decline of education
meant that most parents were not capable of teaching the faith to their
children. Sawicki describes a "cycle of ignorance and syncretism" in
which "newly baptized but not-quite-converted barbarian people passed on
to their boys and girls a mixture of folk lore, Christian legend, and
superstition." (Sawicki 164) Monastic schools arose to meet this need.
They taught basic literacy and religion to some children. Because the
monasteries were the centres of learning the most promising students
tended to stay there. The less gifted returned to the world to raise
children. This meant that parents would have been limited in their
abilities to teach their children.
Gatch claims that "There is a very real sense in which catechesis in the
Middle Ages was the responsibility of parents and godparents. As a
domestic responsibility, often probably inseparable from vocational
training, it took place behind doors that are closed to the historian."
(Gatch, 89) However, we can reconstruct the success of parents in
providing education from other events. Sawicki, for example, ascribes
the thirteenth century susceptibility to heresy to people "having gone
without adequate cognitive formation in faith for many centuries "
(Sawicki 218) Poor education, including religious education, was a
characteristic of the medieval period. This need led to a focus on
educational renewal in the reformation period. Sawicki 243. Renaissance
humanism influenced the form of this renewal.
to be continued...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Brandon
> http://www.brandonstaggs.com/biblical-reasons-to-home-school.html which is
> typical of most Christian fundamentalist home schoolers' erroneous beliefs
> on education ...mainly based on Old Testament proof verses.
What I find interesting is that you did not respond to my short little
article. You picked a few phrases and made responses that had little to do
with them. You didn't respond to a single verse quoted. You also missed
the entire point of the article. It was not intended to convince someone
who doesn't believe in the Bible of anything. Since you already reject the
Bible's authority, the article will do nothing for you.
In fact, as someone who openly admits to disbelief in the Bible, you are not
even qualified to critique my little, itty-bitty essay on why someone who
believes the Bible is true should homeschool.
--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > Below is a critique of
> > http://www.brandonstaggs.com/biblical-reasons-to-home-school.html which
is
> > typical of most Christian fundamentalist home schoolers' erroneous
beliefs
> > on education ...mainly based on Old Testament proof verses.
>
> What I find interesting is that you did not respond to my short little
> article.
Pray tell, what did I respond to then? It was the link you keep providing!
If others supplied links I would likewise criticise them ... to start
getting you to think critically about what you are doing!
> You picked a few phrases and made responses that had little to do
> with them.
I quoted a few of your phrases that were relevant. The rest were not
relevant.
> You didn't respond to a single verse quoted.
I did respond to the use of proof verses from the bible:
*******************
> Brandon thinks the bible is the "Word of God' when in fact it is an
ancient
> collection of books about people's experience of God. If one reads all
the >bible it clearly states that Jesus is the Word of God (John 1: 1)
&
> This is an unsubstantiated biased claim based on subjective opinion on
bible
> proof verses taken out of context.
&
> The word "school" does not appear in either the Old or New Testament and
> therefore the bible cannot be used to back any particular school system.
&
>Other Christians, like myself, do not take the bible as the final word on
>anything. A Christian is meant to use their God given brain.
> This explanation is also not useful for Moslems, Buddhists, Jews,
Atheists,
>Agnostics, etc etc etc. It ONLY works for fundamentalists ... just like
>creation pseudo-science it is to be totally rejected as the subjective
>opinion of fanatics.
&
>Universal schooling is a modern invention and a culturally determined
>phenomenon. As a result direct appeal to the bible as "proof" for a
>schooling system is inadmissible.
&
> The bible uses terms associated with the teaching ministry within a church
> and educational metaphors but these cannot be honestly transposed to
support
> any Christian schooling concept.
> You also missed the entire point of the article.
Which was ......????
> It was not intended to convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible
of
> anything. Since you already reject the Bible's authority, the article
will do
> nothing for you.
I am a Christian (and ordained minister) who does take the bible seriously
... but not literally. I pointed out that your proof texting of
homeschooling from the bible is faulty. It is merely your subjective
exegesis of scripture which was written by eastern minds and not western
minds. one needs to approach the bible from a Jewish perspective which you
have not done as a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism interprets Jewish
scripture from a Western standpoint.
> In fact, as someone who openly admits to disbelief in the Bible, you are
not
> even qualified to critique my little, itty-bitty essay on why someone who
> believes the Bible is true should homeschool.
ANYONE is qualified to critique another's standpoint ... including YOU on my
post last night. What you haven't done is tell me WHY what I say is wrong!
Can you debate in a logical, rational manner WITHOUT the use of a bible
proof verse or ad hominems???? I doubt it. That type of irrational
argument brings homeschgooling into disrepute as it is seen by some
professional educators as a fundamentalist Christian abberation and not
worthy to even consider. That is not the case ... but that is what you
present!
Critically reflect on what I have stated.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Here is the first part of a paper I wrote for a course a few years ago and
> posted to this ng. You can find the rest by doing an advance google
search
> on my name with "Erasmus" in the find message field. I think it has some
> bearing on some of the issues you raise.
Thank you! At last some real meat!!!! You are one of the few on this NG
that critically reflect on home schooling. This is more on the history of
schooling than Brendon's claim that the bible specifically supports home
schooling (which it doesn't).
My reply will follow later.
Brandon
> "Brandon" wrote:
>
> > You picked a few phrases and made responses that had little to do
> > with them.
>
> I quoted a few of your phrases that were relevant. The rest were not
> relevant.
Are you for real? If you were responding to my article, then EVERYTHING in
my article is relevant to your response. If you didn't have such a large
track record on the net I would think you are just a joker.
> > You didn't respond to a single verse quoted.
>
> I did respond to the use of proof verses from the bible:
Is that the same thing? Of course not. I am decidedly uninterested in your
opinion of Scripture. For me it is settled that it is authoritative. My
article was written for people who believe the Bible, not for people like
you who believe it is of limited relevance.
> > You also missed the entire point of the article.
>
> Which was ......????
You quote it below...
> > It was not intended to convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible
> of
> > anything. Since you already reject the Bible's authority, the article
> will do
> > nothing for you.
>
> I am a Christian (and ordained minister) who does take the bible seriously
Your total inability to stay on point and respond to arguments aside, I do
not accept your claim to be a Christian. On
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/afam/afam0122.htm you state clearly: "I have
conviction that there is a God. The rest is open for re-evaluation." This is
NOT a statement of a follower of Christ by ANY stretch of the term. All
doctrinal issues aside, you are calling yourself a Christian with no basis
for doing so. You label yourself as a Christian with the same authority that
you label us all as fundamentalists. You understand neither.
> ... but not literally. I pointed out that your proof texting of
> homeschooling from the bible is faulty.
AGAIN, you are incapable of staying on point. The point of my article is
NOT to "prove" ANYTHING. The point was to show why I believe homsechooling
is Scriptural!
> Critically reflect on what I have stated.
Okay. It's still imbecilic.
Brandon
for some serious "critical reflection."
:-)
--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com
"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f41...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Emma
"Brandon" <go...@website.insig.foremail> wrote in message
news:bhrjs...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3f41...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > "Brandon" wrote:
> > I am a Christian (and ordained minister) who does take the bible
seriously
>
> Your total inability to stay on point and respond to arguments aside, I do
> not accept your claim to be a Christian. On
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/afam/afam0122.htm you state clearly: "I
have
> conviction that there is a God. The rest is open for re-evaluation." This
is
> NOT a statement of a follower of Christ by ANY stretch of the term. All
Unfortunately, this is becoming common - churches are putting up signs
saying, "Taking the Bible seriously... but not literally" [have to get back
to you on that exact church] and, of course, there was the recent furore
over the atheistic Danish Lutheran pastor, Thorkild Grosboell, being
disciplined. [Note from AIG article about this: The head of the parish
council, Lars Heilesen, for example, declared: 'The Church must be able to
tolerate points of view that are not necessarily its own.' Danish pastor
suspended for refusing to believe in God, Agence France-Presse,
<quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bo/Qdenmark-religion.RLdp_DuD.html>,
13 June 2003.]
[Oh dear, have I just exposed myself as a dreadfully backward 'fundy' by
quoting Answers In Genesis, a ministry devoted to the authority of the
Bible, and the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11? Woo-hoo!]
> > Critically reflect on what I have stated.
>
> Okay. It's still imbecilic.
>
Yup.
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Brandon" <go...@website.insig.foremail> wrote in message
> Jayne, once you start getting praise from Tindall here, you know it is
time
> for some serious "critical reflection."
>
> :-)
I was already worried when Chris agreed with me. <g>
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Thank you! At last some real meat!!!! You are one of the few on this NG
> that critically reflect on home schooling.
In my experience the majority of posters here do critically reflect on home
schooling. I find them, in general, to be thoughtful, intelligent people.
My impression is that you have been too quick to judge and to make
assumptions about the people here. Whatever valid points you have to make
have been lost in your emotionally loaded and confrontational manner. Your
posts have not been conducive to critical thinking.
Jayne
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > Furthermore, there seems to be no professional reading of any high
quality
> > done by homeschoolers. Having refused to even consider criticism their
> > refuge is in poorly written fundamentalist "books" which no worthy
> academic
> > educational journal would consider publishing. As a result they are
left
> to
> > wander in a sea of mutual ignorance. It is not their ignorance that
> > worries me as much as the damage they do to innocent children who
deserve
> > much better than the amateurish witchdoctor type "edjakashun" of home
> > schooling.
===================================================
> Recent years have seen the dramatic growth of a phenomenon known as
> "homeschooling" in which parents educate their children at home rather
> than send them to school.
All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of homeschooling? many on thios ng are interested in sharing
the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the weaknesses. This is
a MAJOR FLAW.
> For some parents the decision to do this is
> rooted in their Christian faith.
The bibe, however, does not talk about education in the context of
schoolingb and cannot therefore be used in a proof texting manner to bolster
the argument to home school.
> It is also rooted in history, for
> Christian education in the home is not new.
In the context of general education rather than religious teaching it is
very new.
> Examining both Erasmus and More, allows one to see the reciprocal
> relationship between theory and practice.
Homeschooling seems to have a practice that is not well founded on theory.
> Erasmus represents the theory, for he wrote about it extensively. ....
More lived > out these ideas in educating his family. Thus he represents the
practice.
I understand your plan of attack ... but it is not followed through very
well.
> The idea of parents teaching and passing on faith to their children is
> present from the beginning of Christianity. We find references to it in
> Scripture.
As I stated before :
The word "school" does not appear in either the Old or New Testament and
therefore the bible cannot be used to back any particular school system.
Early Christians sent their children to classical schools. Educational
concerns about the classical schools (primary or secondary) Christians sent
their children to was not an issue in any of the New Testament letters. The
letters also fail to recognise anything concerned with church as schooling.
> John Chrysostom's On Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up
> Their Children "shows that the bishop of Constantinople expects the
> primary religious education of children to take place in the home,"
> including scripture stories and moral instruction.( Sawicki 131)
&
>Unfortunately, "no provision had been made for the
> training of these infants in the fundamental of the faith after their
> baptism" (Gatch 88)
&
>By the seventh century the decline of education
> meant that most parents were not capable of teaching the faith to their
> children.
Indoctrination into religious precepts is not the same as general education.
> Monastic schools arose to meet this need.
> They taught basic literacy and religion to some children.
Note that this is much later than the early church. It is an option but not
a necessity for Christians. One has a choice.
> Poor education, including religious education, was a
> characteristic of the medieval period. This need led to a focus on
> educational renewal in the reformation period. ..... Renaissance
> humanism influenced the form of this renewal.
The Renaissance was 'rebirth" of classicalism. I stated previously:
In the 4th century the Emperor Julian challenged the Christians to take
their children out of the classical schools, where other gods were taught,
and to retreat to their own schools where they could be taught out of
"Matthew and Luke". He was determined to force on Christians the educational
consequences of the New Testament. The Emperor Julian uses the word
"anetos" to describe the children of Christian parents ... it means
"mindless". He suggested that they be cured by an Hellenistic education.
However, children were not penalised because of their parent's beliefs and
the classical schools remained open to all people. Two people named
Apollinaris (father and son) converted the bible into pseudo-classical
literature with the Pentateuch as a Homeric epic and the gospels as Platonic
dialogues because Julian compelled Christians to work from texts written
in sub-classical Greek.
In subsequent centuries Christians developed a quasi-educational system to
teach the New Testament but this did not come into conflict with classical
schooling in any practical manner. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia,
wrote "To Young Men on the Advantages of Greek Literature" which suggested
that pupils need not be corrupted by their work, but the onus was upon
parents (and also secondarily teachers) within the church to train them in
Christian belief after school.
The historical fact is that Christians educated their children fully within
the secular system for the first four centuries after Christ's death in
spite of any contradiction that might have posed. They contradicted any
negative influence by biblical training at church and home.
********************
Who has addressed the historical content of my post???? No-one!
The biggest response to what I have posted has been a series of ad hominem
attacks on me.
Thank you, Jane, for at least trying to reason the home schooling position.
Again, the underpinning of home schooling, the theory, requires critical
reflection. I do not see much of that on this NG. Why???
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I kn
ow the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use to
cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
Is there ANYONE who can answer this in a logical and rational manner without
an ad hominem attack? That is your task ... go to it!
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Jayne, once you start getting praise from Tindall here, you know it is
time
> for some serious "critical reflection."
Brandon, can you post something which has rational, logical and intelligent
content in opposition to my views? Is it really of any use to post ad
hominem attacks rather than tackle the issue?
All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of homeschooling? Many on this NG are interested in sharing
the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the weaknesses. This is
a MAJOR FLAW.
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I kn
ow the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use to
cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
Can you answer this in a logical and rational manner without an ad hominem
Mark and Bev Tindall
> In my experience the majority of posters here do critically reflect on
home
> schooling. I find them, in general, to be thoughtful, intelligent people.
Where is the proof in the responses to my posts?
> Your posts have not been conducive to critical thinking.
All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of homeschooling? Many on this NG are interested in sharing
the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the weaknesses. This is
a MAJOR FLAW.
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I kn
ow the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use to
cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
Can anyone opn this NG answer this in a logical and rational manner without
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > > You picked a few phrases and made responses that had little to do
> > > with them.
> > I quoted a few of your phrases that were relevant. The rest were not
> > relevant.
>
> Are you for real?
Do you comprehend English? "Not relevant"
> > > You didn't respond to a single verse quoted.
> > I did respond to the use of proof verses from the bible:
>
> Is that the same thing?
Yes. Your use of scripture was poor exegesis.
> I am decidedly uninterested in your
> opinion of Scripture. For me it is settled that it is authoritative.
For the rest of educational academia your pithy little proof verses from the
bible are of no relevance whatsoever.
> > > You also missed the entire point of the article.
> > Which was ......????
>
> You quote it below...
Where???
> > I am a Christian (and ordained minister) who does take the bible
seriously
>
> Your total inability to stay on point and respond to arguments aside, I do
> not accept your claim to be a Christian.
That is typical of most fundamentalists. If you read wider you would find
similariries in John Robinson, John Shelby Spong and Karen Armstrong.
> > ... but not literally. I pointed out that your proof texting of
> > homeschooling from the bible is faulty.
>
> AGAIN, you are incapable of staying on point. The point of my article is
> NOT to "prove" ANYTHING. The point was to show why I believe
> homsechooling is Scriptural!
The point I am repeatedly making is that IT IS NOT SCRIPTURAL AT ALL! You
are mistaken!!! Your pithy little proof verses prove nothing of the sort!
You have not used the scripture in an intelligent manner.
READ AGAIN!!!!
*******************************************
The word "school" does not appear in either the Old or New Testament and
therefore the bible cannot be used to back any particular school system.
Early Christians sent their children to classical schools. Educational
concerns about the classical schools (primary or secondary) Christians sent
their children to was not an issue in any of the New Testament letters. The
letters also fail to recognise anything concerned with church as schooling.
*******************************************************
> > Critically reflect on what I have stated.
> Okay. It's still imbecilic.
An ad hominem is not critical reflection!
THINK and ANSWER THE TOPIC:
***********************************
All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of homeschooling? Many on this NG are interested in sharing
the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the weaknesses. This is
a MAJOR FLAW.
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I
know the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use
to
cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
Is there ANYONE who can answer this in a logical and rational manner without
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Unfortunately, this is becoming common - churches are putting up signs
> saying, "Taking the Bible seriously... but not literally"
Perhaps you should read "Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism" by John
Shelby Spong.
> [Oh dear, have I just exposed myself as a dreadfully backward 'fundy' by
> quoting Answers In Genesis, a ministry devoted to the authority of the
> Bible, and the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11? Woo-hoo!]
Yes. Creationists are fundamentalists. Perhaps you should read "Telling
Lies For God: Creationism vs Reason" by Ian Plimer.
> > > Critically reflect on what I have stated.
> > Okay. It's still imbecilic.
>
> Yup.
You are just reinforcing what I have stated from the beginning regarding
fundamentalists and home schooling.
The word "school" does not appear in either the Old or New Testament and
therefore the bible cannot be used to back any particular school system.
Early Christians sent their children to classical schools. Educational
concerns about the classical schools (primary or secondary) Christians sent
their children to was not an issue in any of the New Testament letters. The
letters also fail to recognise anything concerned with church as schooling.
All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the strengths
and weaknesses of homeschooling? Many on this NG are interested in sharing
the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the weaknesses. This is
a MAJOR FLAW.
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I
know the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use
to cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
Is there ANYONE who can answer this in a logical and rational manner without
Brandon
You have posted this flotsam a dozen times just now, word for word. Is this
how you educate? Do you just repeat, repeat, repeat?
Mr. Tindall: A^2 + B^2 = C^2.
Student: Why?
Mr. Tindall: A^2 + B^2 = C^2.
Student: But, why is that?
Mr. Tindall: A^2 + B^2 = C^2.
Student: I know. Can you explain why we know that?
Mr. Tindall: A^2 + B^2 = C^2.
Student: Never mind, I will ask my dad when I get home.
Mr. Tindall: A^2 + B^2 = C^2. Your dad is a fundamentalist.
Student: How do you know that?
Mr. Tindall: Why are you making ad hominem attacks on me now?
I *have* posted serious questions for you and made serious responses. They
have apparently been a waste of time. Until I agree with you, you will
consider anything I say 'ad hominem.'
You are flat-out wrong when you say that the Bible cannot be applied to
schooling. The Bible gives a few very specific instructions on child
training, which are at odds with modern schooling. I have already quoted
the verses. Just because public schools are a recent devolution of society
doesn't mean the Bible doesn't apply.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness...
> Can you answer this in a logical and rational manner without an ad hominem
> attack? That is your task ... go to it!
Again we must ask why we are supposed to do your research for you. What
studies show that parents who teach are doing their children a disservice?
Why haven't you cited a single study in support of your position that
children can only be educated by "professionals?" I suppose you'll snip
this and accuse me of making an ad hominem attack.
Brandon
> "Brandon" wrote:
>
> > > > You picked a few phrases and made responses that had little to do
> > > > with them.
> > > I quoted a few of your phrases that were relevant. The rest were not
> > > relevant.
> >
> > Are you for real?
>
> Do you comprehend English? "Not relevant"
Why did you snip my response to your "not relevant" mantra and simply repeat
it? Why didn't you respond to my point that anything in my article is be
necessity relevant to your response to my article?
> > > > You didn't respond to a single verse quoted.
> > > I did respond to the use of proof verses from the bible:
> >
> > Is that the same thing?
>
> Yes. Your use of scripture was poor exegesis.
Again, you are showing yourslef to be incapable of staying on point.
You have not responded to any VERSES I quoted. You have simply dismissed
them by saying that there were no modern schooles when the Bible was
written.
> > I am decidedly uninterested in your
> > opinion of Scripture. For me it is settled that it is authoritative.
>
> For the rest of educational academia your pithy little proof verses from
the
> bible are of no relevance whatsoever.
Ad hominem attack coming: you are clearly a few bits short of a byte.
My 'pithy little proof verses' are not for 'educational academia.' I
already explained that.
> > > > You also missed the entire point of the article.
> > > Which was ......????
> >
> > You quote it below...
>
> Where???
>
>
> > > I am a Christian (and ordained minister) who does take the bible
> seriously
> >
> > Your total inability to stay on point and respond to arguments aside, I
do
> > not accept your claim to be a Christian.
>
>
> That is typical of most fundamentalists.
Why do you call yourself a Christian? You have clearly stated that the ONLY
*CONVICTION* you have is that there is a God, and that EVERYTHING else is
open to "reflection." This does not make one anything but a non-atheist!
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe, and tremble.
Oh wait. The word "Christian" doesn't show up in that verses, so obviously
it couldn't apply to the topic at hand! So sorry!
> If you read wider you would find
> similariries in John Robinson, John Shelby Spong and Karen Armstrong.
>
>
> > > ... but not literally. I pointed out that your proof texting of
> > > homeschooling from the bible is faulty.
> >
> > AGAIN, you are incapable of staying on point. The point of my article
is
> > NOT to "prove" ANYTHING. The point was to show why I believe
> > homsechooling is Scriptural!
>
> The point I am repeatedly making is that IT IS NOT SCRIPTURAL AT ALL! You
> are mistaken!!! Your pithy little proof verses prove nothing of the sort!
> You have not used the scripture in an intelligent manner.
You are trying to talk to me about intelligence? That's rich. My article
stands fine on its own. My comments show why I believe the verses
*directly* apply to how we educate our children. You did not refute a
single point I made in my article or explain HOW my comments were wrong...
your mere dismissal of mentioning the Bible is indicative of your poor logic
skills.
[snippitydoodah the repeated flotsam]
Brandon
> The word "school" does not appear in either the Old or New Testament and
> therefore the bible cannot be used to back any particular school system.
> Early Christians sent their children to classical schools. Educational
> concerns about the classical schools (primary or secondary) Christians
sent
> their children to was not an issue in any of the New Testament letters.
The
> letters also fail to recognise anything concerned with church as
schooling.
You are incorrect that the word "school" does not appear in the Bible.
Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of
three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of
God. 9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of
that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the
disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
Besides, what of words that specifically pertain to education and learning?
learn*: 60 verses.
teach*: 170 verses.
admonish: 3 verses.
wisdom: 222 verses.
truth: 224 verses.
exhort: 16 verses.
study: 3 verses.
What this shows is that school has nothing to do with education or learning.
L. Miller
<m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
>
>> For some parents the decision to do this is
>> rooted in their Christian faith.
>
>The bibe, however, does not talk about education in the context of
>schoolingb and cannot therefore be used in a proof texting manner to bolster
>the argument to home school.
>
>
>> It is also rooted in history, for
>> Christian education in the home is not new.
>
>In the context of general education rather than religious teaching it is
>very new.
It is not *very* new. People have been homeschooling in this country
(US) for over 200 years.
Dalene Barnes
>> The word "school" does not appear in either the Old or New Testament
>> and therefore the bible cannot be used to back any particular school
>> system. Early Christians sent their children to classical schools.
>> Educational concerns about the classical schools (primary or
>> secondary) Christians sent their children to was not an issue in any
>> of the New Testament letters. The letters also fail to recognise
>> anything concerned with church as schooling.
And Brandon, in his wisdom, pointed out...!
>
> You are incorrect that the word "school" does not appear in the Bible.
>
> Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the
> space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning
> the kingdom of God. 9 But when divers were hardened, and believed
> not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed
> from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school
> of one Tyrannus.
>
> Besides, what of words that specifically pertain to education and
> learning?
>
> learn*: 60 verses.
> teach*: 170 verses.
> admonish: 3 verses.
> wisdom: 222 verses.
> truth: 224 verses.
> exhort: 16 verses.
> study: 3 verses.
>
> What this shows is that school has nothing to do with education or
> learning.
Thank you, Brandon, well done!
Off to my day of schooling....I don't think I have a course in "critical
reflection" scheduled this morning. :-)
Dalene
Dalene Barnes
>
> Again, the underpinning of home schooling, the theory, requires
> critical reflection. I do not see much of that on this NG. Why???
Most of us did our "critical reflection" BEFORE we started homeschooling and
see no need to second guess ourselves now or justify ourselves to an obvious
troll.
We're here to discuss the critical reflections of the jobs we're currently
doing, not why you think we shouldn't be doing it. We usually do that more
than lately, there's just been such an amusing diversion lately.
Dalene
Jayne Kulikauskas
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
[]
> > For some parents the decision to do this is
> > rooted in their Christian faith.
>
> The bibe, however, does not talk about education in the context of
> schoolingb and cannot therefore be used in a proof texting manner to
bolster
> the argument to home school.
What the Bible makes very clear is that parents are responsible for the
religious and moral education of their children. Some parents decide that
the best way to fulfill this biblically mandated responsibility is to
homeschool. I do not believe that homeschooling is explicitly commanded by
Scripture. I do believe that homeschooling is a valid application of a
Scriptural principle.
> > It is also rooted in history, for
> > Christian education in the home is not new.
>
> In the context of general education rather than religious teaching it is
> very new.
I agree that the norm in the earliest centuries of Christianity was general
education in secular schools with religious instruction conducted in the
home. However, my paper concerned the 16th century. In Thomas More's
household, both general and religious education were conducted in the home.
> > Examining both Erasmus and More, allows one to see the reciprocal
> > relationship between theory and practice.
>
>
> Homeschooling seems to have a practice that is not well founded on theory.
The theory behind homeschooling is similar to the theory that promotes small
class size - the more students being taught at a time, the more difficult it
is to individualize instruction. Children progress at different rates, have
different learning styles, interests, etc. When fewer children are being
taught, it is easier to meet their individual needs.I know of nobody who
questions that smaller class sizes create more desirable learning
environments. Homeschooling is simply the logical extension of this.
[]
> > John Chrysostom's On Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up
> > Their Children "shows that the bishop of Constantinople expects the
> > primary religious education of children to take place in the home,"
> > including scripture stories and moral instruction.( Sawicki 131)
> &
> >Unfortunately, "no provision had been made for the
> > training of these infants in the fundamental of the faith after their
> > baptism" (Gatch 88)
> &
> >By the seventh century the decline of education
> > meant that most parents were not capable of teaching the faith to their
> > children.
>
>
> Indoctrination into religious precepts is not the same as general
education.
Religious instruction has some similarities to general education and some
differences. Which of these differences do you think are relevant to your
belief that homeschooling is an inadequate form of education?
> > Monastic schools arose to meet this need.
> > They taught basic literacy and religion to some children.
>
>
> Note that this is much later than the early church. It is an option but
not
> a necessity for Christians. One has a choice.
I am not sure what point you are making here. You seem to be arguing that
Christians may homeschool but are not obliged to do so. If so, then I agree
with you. I had the impression that your positition is that homeschooling
is a bad thing to do. That is the position with which I am arguing.
> > Poor education, including religious education, was a
> > characteristic of the medieval period. This need led to a focus on
> > educational renewal in the reformation period. ..... Renaissance
> > humanism influenced the form of this renewal.
>
> The Renaissance was 'rebirth" of classicalism. I stated previously:
>
> In the 4th century the Emperor Julian challenged the Christians to take
> their children out of the classical schools, where other gods were taught,
> and to retreat to their own schools where they could be taught out of
> "Matthew and Luke". He was determined to force on Christians the
educational
> consequences of the New Testament. The Emperor Julian uses the word
> "anetos" to describe the children of Christian parents ... it means
> "mindless". He suggested that they be cured by an Hellenistic education.
> However, children were not penalised because of their parent's beliefs and
> the classical schools remained open to all people.
Julian forbade Christians to teach from works of pagan literature but did
not place any restrictions on who could be a student. In response many
Christians formed their own schools. It seems odd to me to describe this by
saying that Julian challenged Christians to take their children out of
classical schools.
>Two people named
> Apollinaris (father and son) converted the bible into pseudo-classical
> literature with the Pentateuch as a Homeric epic and the gospels as
Platonic
> dialogues because Julian compelled Christians to work from texts written
> in sub-classical Greek.
I suppose that is one interpretation of events. Marianne Sawicki, in her
history, says "the plain style of the Scriptures clearly is a source of
embarrassment to cultured Christians like Augustine". She seems to think
that this was a factor in the translation of Scripture from Koine to
literary Greek as well. She also sees it as being a reaction to Julian's
edict,as you say.
> In subsequent centuries Christians developed a quasi-educational system to
> teach the New Testament but this did not come into conflict with classical
> schooling in any practical manner. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in
Cappadocia,
> wrote "To Young Men on the Advantages of Greek Literature" which suggested
> that pupils need not be corrupted by their work, but the onus was upon
> parents (and also secondarily teachers) within the church to train them in
> Christian belief after school.
Christians of this time did not see pagan literature as contrary to
Christian teaching. They thought of the classical mythology as
foreshadowing Christianity and saw certain characters such as Orpheus as
types of Christ. The situation now is different. Many people see the
education in secular schools as actively opposing Christianity. Personally,
I believe that the materialism which underlies much secular thought is
incompatable with Christian values.
> The historical fact is that Christians educated their children fully
within
> the secular system for the first four centuries after Christ's death in
> spite of any contradiction that might have posed. They contradicted any
> negative influence by biblical training at church and home.
During that time, Christians did not see secular schooling interfering with
their God given mandate to provide moral and religious instruction to their
children. This does not imply that secular schooling of every culture and
every time will not interfere with the responsibility of Christian parents.
In every culture, Christian parents analyze the situation and decide how
they can best fulfill their responsibility. In this culture, many have
concluded that homeschooling is the way to do this.
> ********************
>
> Who has addressed the historical content of my post???? No-one!
>
> The biggest response to what I have posted has been a series of ad hominem
> attacks on me.
>
> Thank you, Jane, for at least trying to reason the home schooling
position.
>
> Again, the underpinning of home schooling, the theory, requires critical
> reflection. I do not see much of that on this NG. Why???
Because you are not loooking for it.
Jayne
Wayne
<m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
>
>> Here is the first part of a paper I wrote for a course a few years ago and
>> posted to this ng. You can find the rest by doing an advance google
>search
>> on my name with "Erasmus" in the find message field. I think it has some
>> bearing on some of the issues you raise.
>
>
>Thank you! At last some real meat!!!! You are one of the few on this NG
>that critically reflect on home schooling.
FYI ---- nobody takes their child out of public school on a wim. It
wasn't all that easy for us to leave the convenient, comfortable,
"free", and "normal" government run system. My wife and I reseached
homeschooling for a year before we took the plunge.
Every year my daughters have taken standardized tests (our choice, the
state requires testing for grades 3, 5, & 8 only) and every year they
far exceed the national norms. If they didn't I'd surely be critically
reflecting on our educational choices.
Also, don't assume that homeschooling means that parents do all the
teaching. We are simply in charge of it's direction. I could not have
taught my daughter how to play the flute or have done any meaningful
art classes with them. Science labs are often done with many families
pulling their resources together.
Wayne
State home eduction site
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/home_education/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=46623&home_educationNav=|605|&home_educationNav=|
The following links are to a homeschooling organization so of course
they are understandably suspect in your mind. But if you read through
them (especially the "Academics" sections) you will see that the
studies are based on the standardized testing required in many states.
http://www.nheri.org/content.php?menu=1002&page_id=24
http://www.nheri.org/content.php?menu=1003&page_id=27
http://www.nheri.org/content.php?menu=1004&page_id=28
> This is more on the history of
>schooling than Brendon's claim that the bible specifically supports home
>schooling (which it doesn't).
>
>My reply will follow later.
>
>
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
..........................................................
A man may be very industrious, and yet not spend his time well. There
is no more fatal blunderer than he who consumes the greater part of
life getting his living.
-Henry David Thoreau, naturalist and author (1817-1862)
Chris Barnes
ROTFL
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Julie Pascal
>
> > Unfortunately, this is becoming common - churches are putting up signs
> > saying, "Taking the Bible seriously... but not literally"
>
> Perhaps you should read "Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism" by John
> Shelby Spong.
Forget this guy, Emma. But please stay to play with us. <smile>
--Julie
abacus
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
>
> > In my experience the majority of posters here do critically reflect on
> home
> > schooling. I find them, in general, to be thoughtful, intelligent people.
>
> Where is the proof in the responses to my posts?
>
>
> > Your posts have not been conducive to critical thinking.
>
>
> All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the strengths
> and weaknesses of homeschooling? Many on this NG are interested in sharing
> the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the weaknesses. This is
> a MAJOR FLAW.
The *weaknesses* of homeschooling are as individual as the people who
pursue it. Tolstoy wrote something along the lines of *Every
happy family is the same. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own
way.* (Sorry I don't recall the exact quote. It was Tolstoy wasn't
it?) While the strengths of homeschooling tend to be similar (see
thread on that) the flaws and failings of homeschooling are as diverse
as the people who attempt it.
> DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
> your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
> performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I kn
> ow the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use to
> cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
I don't think surgery is a particularly good metaphor for
homeschooling. Surgery, after all, is an individual thing, while
traditional education is not. Seems to me that if surgery was like
education in a school, you would have a single surgeon performing the
same operation on 30 children at the same time.
Under those circumstances, I would indeed decide against sending my
child off to have the mass surgery done with all of his/her same age
peers. I would, instead, wait until my child showed some symptom or
problem and then take them to an expert for diagnosis and make a
decision about whether or not surgery was appropriate based on whether
it was appropriate for my child, not based on the fact that everybody
else is getting it done.
Health care, not surgery, is a better metaphor for homeschooling. You
manage your child's education, just as you manage your child's health,
but few parents attempt to do so entirely on their own. Input from
experts is appropriate and useful. Many things (such as removing
splinters, bandaging minor injuries, and teaching good hygiene) can
be done without difficulty by virtually all parents. And knowledge of
the individual child is essential to doing a good job. Parents are
more crucial than health care professionals in maintaining their
child's good health, just as parents are more crucial than teachers in
their child acquiring a good education regardless of whether one
chooses to homeschool or not.
> Can anyone opn this NG answer this in a logical and rational manner without
> an ad hominem attack? That is your task ... go to it!
The only ad hominem attacks I've seen here were yours and some
responses to your attacks.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> You are flat-out wrong when you say that the Bible cannot be applied to
> schooling.
Then prove it rationally and logically without a bible proof text. Can you
do that?
> The Bible gives a few very specific instructions on child
> training,
&
> I have already quoted the verses. Just because public schools are a
recent
> devolution of society doesn't mean the Bible doesn't apply.
The bible doesn't apply because it is not speaking about general education
but only religious instruction. There is a mjor difference between to the
two! What do you suppose that might be?
> which are at odds with modern schooling.
As I previously stated - fundamentalists have a fear of modernity. That is
why "moi!" as a modern professional teacher is the "troll" and "enemy"
according to your fundamentalist belief.
I ask for your forgiveness so, no matter how much I annoy you, you have to
forgive me seventy times seven in the one day. (Luke 17:5)
You will follow the bible, won't you?
> 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness...
Unfortunately that verse does not apply to the New Testament as the New
Testament had not been finished at the time of this letter.
Jesus' date of death is difficult to ascertain but is in the range of 27 -
34 CE. Paul's letters to the Thessalonians & Galatians are the first
written references to Jesus dated 48 or 49 CE. The last of Paul's writings,
perhaps Colossians, is dated about 62 CE. When Paul died not a single
gospel had been written and none of Paul's letters were considered
scripture. Paul knows nothing about a virgin birth nor a Damascus road
experience and describes the resurrection passively as "was raised". Paul
was converted to Christianity no earlier than one year and no later than 6
years after Jesus' death.
The Gospels are further away from the time of the historical Jesus. Mark's
gospel was written no earlier than 65 CE and no later than 75 CE. Matthew
probably wrote his gospel in Antioch and is dated circa 85 CE. The Gospel
of Luke and Acts (one two volumed book!) seems to have been written in
Caesaraa between 83 CE and 90 CE. John's gospel appears to have been
written around 100 CE.
> Why haven't you cited a single study in support of your position that
> children can only be educated by "professionals?"
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I
know the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use
to cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
Is there ANYONE who can answer this in a logical and rational manner without
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the
strengths
> > and weaknesses of homeschooling? Many on this NG are interested in
>> sharing the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the
weaknesses.
>> This is a MAJOR FLAW.
>
> The *weaknesses* of homeschooling are as individual as the people who
> pursue it.
GOOD! A decent response. What are your particular weaknesses in
homeschooling?
> Tolstoy wrote something along the lines of *Every
> happy family is the same. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own
> way.* (Sorry I don't recall the exact quote. It was Tolstoy wasn't
> it?)
Yes Tolstoy's quote. Tolstoy was a Christian who did not believe that Jesus
was God ...but followed Christ's command to love God and others with "ALL
YOUR MIND". Read Tolstoy's 'A Confession sand Other Religious Writings" in
the Penguin Classics.
> While the strengths of homeschooling tend to be similar (see
> thread on that)
I agree. That is not the issue that needs addressing at the moment.
> the flaws and failings of homeschooling are as diverse as the people who
>attempt it.
What might those flaws and failings encompass???
> > DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
> > your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
> > performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent
I kn
> > ow the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use
to
> > cut up the meat and veg every day ... simple!"
>
> I don't think surgery is a particularly good metaphor for
> homeschooling. Surgery, after all, is an individual thing, while
> traditional education is not. Seems to me that if surgery was like
> education in a school, you would have a single surgeon performing the
> same operation on 30 children at the same time.
A nice reply! :-)
> Under those circumstances, I would indeed decide against sending my
> child off to have the mass surgery done with all of his/her same age
> peers. I would, instead, wait until my child showed some symptom or
> problem and then take them to an expert for diagnosis and make a
> decision about whether or not surgery was appropriate based on whether
> it was appropriate for my child, not based on the fact that everybody
> else is getting it done.
Good points!
> Health care, not surgery, is a better metaphor for homeschooling. You
> manage your child's education, just as you manage your child's health,
> but few parents attempt to do so entirely on their own. Input from
> experts is appropriate and useful. Many things (such as removing
> splinters, bandaging minor injuries, and teaching good hygiene) can
> be done without difficulty by virtually all parents. And knowledge of
> the individual child is essential to doing a good job. Parents are
> more crucial than health care professionals in maintaining their
> child's good health, just as parents are more crucial than teachers in
> their child acquiring a good education regardless of whether one
> chooses to homeschool or not.
A good argument! You state ...
> You manage your child's education, just as you manage your child's health,
> but few parents attempt to do so entirely on their own.
What type of educational things might a home schooling parent NOT attempt to
do but refer it to a professional? Why?
I congratulate you on you critical reflection on this topic!!! Well
done!!!! :-)
Mark and Bev Tindall
> >Thank you! At last some real meat!!!! You are one of the few on this NG
> >that critically reflect on home schooling.
>
> FYI ---- nobody takes their child out of public school on a wim.
A generalisation. Some do ... I have met them.
> My wife and I reseached
> homeschooling for a year before we took the plunge.
How did you research? What did you read? What were your conclusions about
the strengths AND weaknesses?
> Every year my daughters have taken standardized tests (our choice, the
> state requires testing for grades 3, 5, & 8 only) and every year they
> far exceed the national norms. If they didn't I'd surely be critically
> reflecting on our educational choices.
You should be critically reflecting regardless of outcome. It is used by all
prossessional teachers to improve their teaching. One can always improve in
education ... that is why I am staying on this list.
> Also, don't assume that homeschooling means that parents do all the
> teaching. We are simply in charge of it's direction.
Good!
> I could not have
> taught my daughter how to play the flute or have done any meaningful
> art classes with them. Science labs are often done with many families
> pulling their resources together.
Well done! You are now getting the idea. How did you choose these people?
Why? Why could you not have taught them? This is beginning to address the
strengths AND WEAKNESSES of homeschooling.
> The following links are to a homeschooling organization so of course
> they are understandably suspect in your mind.
Of course NOT! The only thing that is suspect are people who do not
actively engage their God given brains. I keep sayiong that there arew
m,any positive aspects of home schooling but that you jave NOT addresed the
NEGATIVES & WEAKNESSES. This must be done if you want to improve in your
teaching ...and if you want to attract other people to your home schooling
movement. This was a lesson that was hard learnt by the Christian School
movement.
> But if you read through them (especially the "Academics" sections) you
will see >that the studies are based on the standardized testing required in
many states.
I will read through them and post my replies at a later date. Thanks for
the links. This gives me an indication of what you are reading and what
would be of most help for you.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> >> It is also rooted in history, for
> >> Christian education in the home is not new.
> >
> >In the context of general education rather than religious teaching it is
> >very new.
>
> It is not *very* new. People have been homeschooling in this country
> (US) for over 200 years.
Compared to the last 5 000 years ...200 years is "very new".
In Australia the first school was associated with the Anglican church and
was held in the church building. It was only up a few months before being
burnt to the ground. No one was ever arrested for the arson. The early
Australian settlers' children were taught by convicts. Australia has no
Christian heritage whatsoever. We were a convict colony.
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I
know the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > Again, the underpinning of home schooling, the theory, requires
> > critical reflection. I do not see much of that on this NG. Why???
>
> Most of us did our "critical reflection" BEFORE we started homeschooling
Good! That is an admirable thing to do.
> and see no need to second guess ourselves now
The problem is that your teaching will never improve without critical
reflection right throughout the educational task. Professional teachers use
critical reflection contionuously to improve their teacher performance. Why
is it not of any use to home schoolers?
> or justify ourselves to an obvious troll.
Nice loving words again ......the term "troll" is pejorative.
Read Matthew 23:34 "I [Jesus] tell you that I will send you ...TEACHERS; you
will KILL some of them, CRUCIFY others, asnd WHIP others in the synagogues
and CHASE THEM FROM TOWN TO TOWN."
Could Jesus be talking about YOU??????????
> We're here to discuss the critical reflections of the jobs we're currently
> doing
YES!!!! So .... what ARE the WEAKNESSES in YOUR teaching NOW??????
DIY surgery is a metaphor of homeschooling. It is like refusing to send
your child to a qualified professional surgeon to have an operation and
performing the task yourself on your kitchen table because "as a parent I
know the child better ... and surgery is only using a knife ...which I use
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > > For some parents the decision to do this is
> > > rooted in their Christian faith.
> > The bible, however, does not talk about education in the context of
> > schooling and cannot therefore be used in a proof texting manner to
> > bolster the argument to home school.
>
> What the Bible makes very clear is that parents are responsible for the
> religious and moral education of their children.
I totally agree. This is stated throughout the Old and New Testament.
> Some parents decide that the best way to fulfill this biblically mandated
> responsibility is to homeschool. I do not believe that homeschooling is
> explicitly commanded by Scripture. I do believe that homeschooling is a
valid > application of a Scriptural principle.
An excellent reply which I totally agree with!!!
You have correctly pointed out:
1. Training in religious, ethiocal and moral areas is the responsibility of
the parent and backed by bible injunction.
2. Such training is best given in the home and if yoiu home school itb is a
24 / 7 application of this training.
3. Home schooling is not commanded in the bible.
4. There are biblical principles that may be used to support the validity
of home schooling but not its universal application to all Christians. 9one
of these is freedom in Christ which is absolute freedpom - Galatians 5:1)
> > > It is also rooted in history, for
> > > Christian education in the home is not new.
> >
> > In the context of general education rather than religious teaching it is
> > very new.
>
> I agree that the norm in the earliest centuries of Christianity was
general
> education in secular schools with religious instruction conducted in the
> home.
We both agree on this historical fact.
> However, my paper concerned the 16th century. In Thomas More's
> household, both general and religious education were conducted in the
home.
It is a valid option. What differences would there be in Thomas More's
educational methodolgy compared to a home schooler's methodology today? Are
the teaching techniques different? How? Why? Would the curricula be
diuferent? How? Why?
> > Homeschooling seems to have a practice that is not well founded on
theory.
>
> The theory behind homeschooling is similar to the theory that promotes
small
> class size - the more students being taught at a time, the more difficult
it
> is to individualize instruction.
Individulisation is a valid argument. What is a homeschooler also has
several chuildren ...including babies? is this not also a weakness? How
can it be overcome?
> > Indoctrination into religious precepts is not the same as general
> education.
>
> Religious instruction has some similarities to general education and some
> differences. Which of these differences ....
Content, methodolgy suited to content, expertise in dlivery, diagnosis,
remediation, assessment and evaluation.
> I am not sure what point you are making here. You seem to be arguing
that
> Christians may homeschool but are not obliged to do so. If so, then I
agree
> with you.
Yes.
> I had the impression that your positition is that homeschooling
> is a bad thing to do. That is the position with which I am arguing.
Only if there is no critical reflection and parents are unaware of the
limits and weaknesses of the sysytem and do not ADDRESS it.
> Many people see the education in secular schools as actively opposing
> Christianity. Personally,
> I believe that the materialism which underlies much secular thought is
> incompatable with Christian values.
Some Christians teach in the public schools. Some Christians place their
childen in public schools. Some Christians place their children in
Christian Schools. This is an individual choice based upon the Christian's
freedom in Christ.
Fundamentalism is a reaction against modernity.
Do you support any financial instuitution that lends money with interest?
The bible is against usury.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > Do you comprehend English? "Not relevant"
>
> Why did you snip my response to your "not relevant" mantra and simply
repeat
> it? Why didn't you respond to my point that anything in my article is be
> necessity relevant to your response to my article?
Not relevant.
> > > > > You didn't respond to a single verse quoted.
> > > > I did respond to the use of proof verses from the bible:
> > >
> > > Is that the same thing?
> >
> > Yes. Your use of scripture was poor exegesis.
>
> Again, you are showing yourslef to be incapable of staying on point.
Talk to the hand .....
> You have not responded to any VERSES I quoted. You have simply
> dismissed them by saying that there were no modern schooles when the Bible
> was written.
I didn't say that, I said thatb the bible does not talk about general
education. it only speaks about training in religious values. Therefore,
your bible proof texts are irrelevant because they only address training in
religious valaues and do not address education in academic studies.
Now ...critically reflect on this statement from John Milton's
"Areopagitica" (1644) [Appleton- Century Crofts; New York:1951]
p. 14 " ... the example of Moses, Daniel, and Paul, who were skilful in the
learning of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Greeks, which could not possibly
be without reading their books of all sorts, in Paul especially, who thought
it no defilement to insert into Holy Scripture the sentences of three Greek
poets, and one of them a tragedian ..." (Acts 17:28 from Aratus; 1
Corinthians 15:33 from Euripides; Titus 1:12 from Epimenides)
What type of education did Moses and Daniel receive???? Go to your bible
and look it up ...and research it elsewhere!!!
> > > I am decidedly uninterested in your
> > > opinion of Scripture. For me it is settled that it is authoritative.
> >
> > For the rest of educational academia your pithy little proof verses from
> the bible are of no relevance whatsoever.
>
> My 'pithy little proof verses' are not for 'educational academia.' I
> already explained that.
They are not for any rational intelligent person as they DO NOT RELATE TO
GENERAL EDUCATION!!!!!!
> > > Your total inability to stay on point and respond to arguments aside,
I
>>> do not accept your claim to be a Christian.
> > That is typical of most fundamentalists.
>
> Why do you call yourself a Christian?
... because I am! ;-)
> You have clearly stated that the ONLY
> *CONVICTION* you have is that there is a God, and that EVERYTHING
> else is open to "reflection."
I have ... as have many other Christians ...look at Tolstoy (quoted in a
previous post). My Christian status does not rely on your fundamentalist
belief. Fundamentalists deny the Christion status of MANY opther Christians
..... including Catholics!!!! There ae many mopre Christians than just
fundamentalists ...and they are much more "liberal".
> James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the
devils
> also believe, and tremble.
You quoite from the book that Martin Luther described as a "book of straw"
and thought should be removed from the bible. Was Martin Luther a Christian
or not????
> > If you read wider you would find
> > similariries in John Robinson, John Shelby Spong and Karen Armstrong.
> > The point I am repeatedly making is that [home schooling] IS NOT
>> SCRIPTURAL AT ALL! You
> > are mistaken!!! Your pithy little proof verses prove nothing of the
sort!
> > You have not used the scripture in an intelligent manner.
>
> You are trying to talk to me about intelligence?
Yes!!!! Do you comprehend plain English????
> My article stands fine on its own.
It FAILS because your bible proof texts are NOT RELEVANT to GENERAL
EDUCATION!!!!!
> My comments show why I believe the verses *directly* apply to how we
> educate our children. You did not refute a
> single point I made in my article or explain HOW my comments were wrong...
Your comments are wrong because the CONTENT is not the SAME!!!!!
The bible speaks about religious training. The bible does not speak about
general education. The two are DIFFERENT and NOT THE SAME!!!!!
You illogical post wrongly assumes that they ARE the same!!!!!! That is
poor faulty exegesis of scripture. You have applied the scripture to
something it does not mention. You have misinterpreted what the scripture
means!
> [snippitydoodah the repeated flotsam]
Plonk finger getting itchy again .....
Brandon
> "Brandon" wrote:
>
> > > Do you comprehend English? "Not relevant"
> >
> > Why did you snip my response to your "not relevant" mantra and simply
> repeat
> > it? Why didn't you respond to my point that anything in my article is
be
> > necessity relevant to your response to my article?
>
>
> Not relevant.
Your shield of ignorance is impregnable. I have carefully read all of your
responses (even the ones you cut and pasted over and over again) and have
come to the conclusion that you are patently unteachable. I have tried to
respond to you logically (admittedly sprinkled with an adhominem or two to
keep it fun) but you can only teach a head of lettuce to do so much! Not
only is your research laughable but you seem to not realize that most of us
here have been through the public school sausage factory ourselves so we all
have some intimate understanding of it. Your tar-brushing us as all
fundamentalists is a clarion call to your ignorance. None of us speak for
all of us.
Scott, you were right. My apologies to the group for continually baiting
this troll.
PS: I reserve the right to bait him again. I'll not make the mistake Julie
did and say "I'm done," though I THINK I am. :-)
-Brandon
"rat-fundy-yank" and proud of it.
BOB!!
> In Australia the first school was associated with the Anglican church and
> was held in the church building. It was only up a few months before being
> burnt to the ground. No one was ever arrested for the arson.
This is a wonderful explanation of the historical background of Australian
religious intolerance. But what does it have to do with homeschooling? Is
it a warning to religious homeschoolers in Australia that somebody might
decide to burn their house down?
BOB!!
Jayne Kulikauskas
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
>
> > > > For some parents the decision to do this is
> > > > rooted in their Christian faith.
> > > The bible, however, does not talk about education in the context of
> > > schooling and cannot therefore be used in a proof texting manner to
> > > bolster the argument to home school.
> >
> > What the Bible makes very clear is that parents are responsible for the
> > religious and moral education of their children.
>
> I totally agree. This is stated throughout the Old and New Testament.
>
>
> > Some parents decide that the best way to fulfill this biblically
mandated
> > responsibility is to homeschool. I do not believe that homeschooling is
> > explicitly commanded by Scripture. I do believe that homeschooling is a
> > valid application of a Scriptural principle.
>
> An excellent reply which I totally agree with!!!
You needn't sound so surprised that I could come up with an excellent reply.
<g>
> You have correctly pointed out:
>
> 1. Training in religious, ethiocal and moral areas is the responsibility
of
> the parent and backed by bible injunction.
>
> 2. Such training is best given in the home and if yoiu home school itb is
a
> 24 / 7 application of this training.
>
> 3. Home schooling is not commanded in the bible.
>
> 4. There are biblical principles that may be used to support the validity
> of home schooling but not its universal application to all Christians.
9one
> of these is freedom in Christ which is absolute freedpom - Galatians 5:1)
You may be surprised to learn that your point 4 above is the more common
position of posters to this newsgroup. Most people here think of
homeschooling as something that God leads specific people to rather than a
universal command to Christians.
[]
> > However, my paper concerned the 16th century. In Thomas More's
> > household, both general and religious education were conducted in the
> home.
>
> It is a valid option. What differences would there be in Thomas More's
> educational methodolgy compared to a home schooler's methodology today?
Are
> the teaching techniques different? How? Why? Would the curricula be
> diuferent? How? Why?
More's curriculum was similar to that of today's homeschoolers who take the
classical approach.
> > > Homeschooling seems to have a practice that is not well founded on
> theory.
> >
> > The theory behind homeschooling is similar to the theory that promotes
> small class size - the more students being taught at a time, the more
difficult
> it is to individualize instruction.
>
> Individulisation is a valid argument. What is a homeschooler also has
> several chuildren ...including babies? is this not also a weakness? How
> can it be overcome?
That is a regular topic for discussion on this newsgroup. People who are in
the situation come with the question and others draw on their experience to
answer them. As I recall there is an FAQ on the subject.
> > > Indoctrination into religious precepts is not the same as general
> > education.
> >
> > Religious instruction has some similarities to general education and
some
> > differences. Which of these differences ....
>
> Content, methodolgy suited to content, expertise in dlivery, diagnosis,
> remediation, assessment and evaluation.
I have taken graduate level courses on religious education and I do not
recall learning about any methodolgy that was different from general
methodology. The things that help people to learn best are the same. As I
look at what you have listed there, the only one that seems a difference is
content.
[]
> > I had the impression that your positition is that homeschooling
> > is a bad thing to do. That is the position with which I am arguing.
>
> Only if there is no critical reflection and parents are unaware of the
> limits and weaknesses of the sysytem and do not ADDRESS it.
I have some doubts about your ability to recognize the existence of critical
reflection.
> > Many people see the education in secular schools as actively opposing
> > Christianity. Personally,
> > I believe that the materialism which underlies much secular thought is
> > incompatable with Christian values.
>
> Some Christians teach in the public schools. Some Christians place their
> childen in public schools. Some Christians place their children in
> Christian Schools. This is an individual choice based upon the
Christian's
> freedom in Christ.
I agree. Most people here would agree. I consider homeschooling as a very
good choice because of its moral, religious, social and academic benefits.
> Fundamentalism is a reaction against modernity.
I am neither a fundamentalist nor a person who wishes to pick fights with
fundamentalists.
> Do you support any financial instuitution that lends money with interest?
> The bible is against usury.
Yes, it is.
Do you think trying to tear down people's faith is a good thing?
Jayne
BOB!!
> This is one of the reasons homeschoolers should be very careful! Home
> schooling is dominated by rabid fundamentalists who do not value learning
> for the sake of learning.
Do you have evidence to support this assertion, or are you speaking
anecdotally?
BOB!!
abacus
> "abacus" wrote:
>
> > > All educational theory has strengths and weaknesses. What are the
> strengths
> > > and weaknesses of homeschooling? Many on this NG are interested in
> >> sharing the strengths. No-one is interested in addressing the
> weaknesses.
> >> This is a MAJOR FLAW.
> >
> > The *weaknesses* of homeschooling are as individual as the people who
> > pursue it.
>
>
> GOOD! A decent response. What are your particular weaknesses in
> homeschooling?
Our weaknesses are particular to our family, not reflective of the
homeschooling in general. For us, the major weaknesses are team
athletics and foreign languages. We don't consider either to be
essential and our daughter hasn't had much interest in pursuing them.
If she had, we'd have found paths to provide those educational
experiences for her. There are opportunities in our city, we simply
haven't pursued them due to lack of interest. Neither are required
subjects in public schools here - at least they weren't back when I
was in school.
> > the flaws and failings of homeschooling are as diverse as the people who
> >attempt it.
> What might those flaws and failings encompass???
Just about anything I imagine. In general, I perceive the major
strength of homeschooling to be individualized attention and pacing,
sort of the antithesis of the major weakness of traditional schooling.
If one considers a major strength of traditional schooling to be
uniformity of curriculum, one might consider the lack of
standardization to be a weakness of homeschooling. Personally, I think
the uniformity imposed by a standardized curriculum to be a weakness,
not a strength, of the school system.
> > You manage your child's education, just as you manage your child's health,
> > but few parents attempt to do so entirely on their own.
> What type of educational things might a home schooling parent NOT attempt to
> do but refer it to a professional? Why?
Depends on the parent's particular weaknesses. Our daughter has taken
physical education courses and music lessons - I wouldn't have wanted
to attempt either myself. Our family has most academic subjects well
covered with our own expertise. I have a math/engineering background.
My spouse is a freelance writer/artist. We're both reasonably well
read, particularly in the sciences. Even in areas that we're not
expert in, it hasn't been difficult to help our daughter select texts,
ask interesting questions, and otherwise provide food for thought.
Other parents might not feel comfortable with, say, algebra, and seek
outside assistance for that subject.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > In Australia the first school was associated with the Anglican church
and
> > was held in the church building. It was only up a few months before
being
> > burnt to the ground. No one was ever arrested for the arson.
>
> This is a wonderful explanation of the historical background of Australian
> religious intolerance. But what does it have to do with homeschooling?
Australia has no background in homeschooling like the USA. The conditions
are much different. Thus any argument that ties homeschooling to a biblical
injunction or to history of education which includes home schooling must
take into the account the situation here in Australia as well. This has
not happened on any "discussion" (abusive tirade!!!) I have experienced from
some of the home skoolers on this NG who refuse to discuss ideas in a
logical, rational ...and polite ... manner.
> Is it a warning to religious homeschoolers in Australia that somebody
might
> decide to burn their house down?
It is a warning to all educators who have a religious background that people
do not tolerate restrictive fundamentalist rules such as that imposed by the
church on the pupils in early Australia. Fundamentalism is dying. Read
John Shelby Spong. The New Reformation is on your doorstep and you are not
even aware of it!
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > > Some parents decide that the best way to fulfill this biblically
> mandated
> > > responsibility is to homeschool. I do not believe that homeschooling
is
> > > explicitly commanded by Scripture. I do believe that homeschooling is
a
> > > valid application of a Scriptural principle.
> >
> > An excellent reply which I totally agree with!!!
>
> You needn't sound so surprised that I could come up with an excellent
reply.
> <g>
Considering the constant abuse I have tolerated form "Trew Kristyuns" on
this NG ...nothing surprises me here. The "!!!" was meant to show pleasure
and enthusiasm in the response.
> > You have correctly pointed out:
..........
> > 4. There are biblical principles that may be used to support the
validity
> > of home schooling but not its universal application to all Christians.
>> One of these is freedom in Christ which is absolute freedom - Galatians
5:1)
>
> You may be surprised to learn that your point 4 above is the more common
> position of posters to this newsgroup.
I have yet to see ANY indication of that in the majority of responses
(tirade of abuse) that I have read. Galatians 5:1 also gives me absolute
freedom in Christ to be myself and not have to conform to home schoolers'
expectations in any matter.
> Most people here think of homeschooling as something that God leads
specific > people to rather than a universal command to Christians.
Most is not all. ;-)
> > It is a valid option. What differences would there be in Thomas More's
> > educational methodolgy compared to a home schooler's methodology today?
> Are
> > the teaching techniques different? How? Why? Would the curricula be
> > diuferent? How? Why?
>
> More's curriculum was similar to that of today's homeschoolers who take
the
> classical approach.
Why a classical approach? Is it ..dare I say ... a reaction against
modernity as claimed in the literature.
> > Individulisation is a valid argument. What is a homeschooler also has
> > several children ...including babies? Is this not also a weakness? How
> > can it be overcome?
>
> That is a regular topic for discussion on this newsgroup. People who are
in
> the situation come with the question and others draw on their experience
to
> answer them. As I recall there is an FAQ on the subject.
It is therefore a weakness, is it not?
> > > Religious instruction has some similarities to general education and
>>> some
> > > differences. Which of these differences ....
> >
> > Content, methodolgy suited to content, expertise in delivery, diagnosis,
> > remediation, assessment and evaluation.
>
> I have taken graduate level courses on religious education and I do not
> recall learning about any methodolgy that was different from general
> methodology. The things that help people to learn best are the same. As
I
> look at what you have listed there, the only one that seems a difference
is
> content.
"Graduate level courses on religious education" were not available in New
Testament times to which my argument referred. The teaching referred to in
the bible is of a religious nature (and used the educational techniques of
the day) and is not refering to general education nor to contemporary
education. The two are not the same and therefore the bible cannot be used
to support home schooling!
> > Some Christians teach in the public schools. Some Christians place
their
> > childen in public schools. Some Christians place their children in
> > Christian Schools. This is an individual choice based upon the
> Christian's freedom in Christ.
>
> I agree. Most people here would agree.
"Most people" is not all. ;-)
> > Do you support any financial instuitution that lends money with
interest?
> > The bible is against usury.
>
> Yes, it is.
> Do you think trying to tear down people's faith is a good thing?
That was one of the charges laid against St Paul ...and Socrates. The
unexamined life is unworthy.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > > > Do you comprehend English? "Not relevant"
> > > Why did you snip my response to your "not relevant" mantra and simply
> > repeat
> > > it? Why didn't you respond to my point that anything in my article is
> be
> > > necessity relevant to your response to my article?
> > Not relevant.
>
> Your shield of ignorance is impregnable.
Fundamentalists are ignorant not professional educators like myself.
[snigger]
> I have carefully read all of your
> responses (even the ones you cut and pasted over and over again) and have
> come to the conclusion that you are patently unteachable.
Do you think I am really concerned about the subjective opinion of an
ignorant fundamentalist?
> I have tried to
> respond to you logically (admittedly sprinkled with an adhominem or two to
> keep it fun)
How is an ad hominem fun? Please explain your warped and ignorant view.
> you can only teach a head of lettuce to do so much!
...as i am finding out with some of the "trew Kristyuns" on this Ng. ;-)
[snigger]
> Not
> only is your research laughable but you seem to not realize that most of
us
> here have been through the public school sausage factory ourselves so we
all
> have some intimate understanding of it.
Mmmm ...and I've been to the dentist and therefore know everything about
dentistry
............................................................................
........not.
Such fundamentalist ignorance!
> PS: I reserve the right to bait him again.
Ah yes! Showing your "trew Kristyun luv"!
Read Matthew 23:34 "I [Jesus] tell you that I will send you ...TEACHERS; you
will KILL some of them, CRUCIFY others, and WHIP others in the synagogues
and CHASE THEM FROM TOWN TO TOWN."
Could Jesus be talking about YOU??????????
I'm a real teacher ... not a pretend fundy home skooler!
> -Brandon
> "rat-fundy-yank" and proud of it.
That's a real worry!
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > This is one of the reasons homeschoolers should be very careful! Home
> > schooling is dominated by rabid fundamentalists who do not value
learning
> > for the sake of learning.
>
> Do you have evidence to support this assertion, or are you speaking
> anecdotally?
Read this NG. ;-)
Vic Kulikauskas
...
> not happened on any "discussion" (abusive tirade!!!) I have experienced from
> some of the home skoolers on this NG who refuse to discuss ideas in a
> logical, rational ...and polite ... manner.
Perhaps you should re-read the history of this conversation (not
just this thread). You came to the NG with a proclamation,
effectively, that people who choose to educate their children
other than in the institutional school system are all
a) incompetent to do so, and
b) motivated solely by closed-mindedness.
I believe the first 4 or 5 responses you received were logical,
rational and polite, addressing points (a) and (b) above. Then
came a post from Chris, who is, yes, an outspoken fundamentalist,
that called your opinion "crap", and you took that to be the
TYPICAL response -- why? (Actually, I've been told that there
was a post I did not see in which you explained that you had not
seen the other posts. If that is so, please accept my
apologies.)
You have taken Brandon's web page, which, as he has pointed out
many times, is making a point of the form "If you believe A, then
that implies B", and kept insisting "but I don't believe A!"
That's not the point. The truth or falsity of A has no bearing
on the proposition that A implies B. If you believe that A is
false, you still know nothing about B. If however, you believe
that A is true, and you are convinced by the argument that A
implies B, then (and only then) are you obliged to either believe
B or re-examine your presuppositions. So, when Brandon says that
his web page is for those who believe in the literal
interpretation of scripture (A), to convince them that
home-schooling is right (B), what relevance does it have to point
out that he hasn't proven A to your satisfaction? That is a
completely different issue.
You keep repeating over and over and over and over again about
how trying to teach your children at home is like DIY surgery.
The responses to this have been to point out that
a) an institutionalized school setting is much more like a
factory than like a modern operating room, and
b) parent often DO take out splinters and treat minor infections
without the help of professionals, yet they call upon
professionals when the situation warrants, which is EXACTLY
what home-schoolers do (at least the ones I know).
From what I've been able to see, you've ignored point (a), and
responded abusively to point (b). It seems like you're trying to
argue that one MUST have any splinters removed by a surgeon, and
that not having a medical professional apply the bandage when a
kid has scraped themselves is running the grave risk of dying
from infections. Were you really trying to say that?
I'm not sure why I'm writing this instead of heading off to work
early as was my intention. It seems that I'm just repeating what
must be obvious already, but perhaps something in the way I've
phrased something may add something to the discussion.
There is a story about a man who sat by a road leading into a
town. One traveller came by and asked "What are the people in
this town like?" The man asked "What were they like in the last
town you visited?" Upon being told that, in the previous town
they were all abusive cheats and liars, he said "I'm afraid that
you'll find the ones in this town are just like that, too."
A second traveller came by, and asked the man the same question,
"What are the people in this town like?" When THIS traveller was
asked what the people in the previous town were like, he
responded "Oh, they were very friendly and helpful, interesting
to talk to, and a pleasure to do business with." The man
answered "You will be glad to know that the people in this town
are like that, too."
One finds what one is looking for.
Vic Kulikauskas
What he's trying to say is that he's speaking anecdotally based
on experiences in Australia, although there have also been
anecdotes posted by home-schoolers in Australia that contradict
the statement.
Certainly, one of the characteristics that comes through very
clearly in this NG is that it's dominated by people who value
learning for the sake of learning, although, again, that isn't
quantitative evidence for what the MAJORITY of home-schoolers are
like.
As somebody pointed out earlier, one's opinion of home-schooling
can be very different depending on what cross-section of home-
schoolers one has been exposed to.
Dalene Barnes
> >
> I believe the first 4 or 5 responses you received were logical,
> rational and polite, addressing points (a) and (b) above. Then
> came a post from Chris, who is, yes, an outspoken fundamentalist,
> that called your opinion "crap", and you took that to be the
> TYPICAL response -- why? (Actually, I've been told that there
> was a post I did not see in which you explained that you had not
> seen the other posts. If that is so, please accept my
> apologies.)
Now Jayne - please remember that when Chris responded using the word "crap,"
it was in direct response to this post by Tindall:
This is why fundamentalists love "home skooling" so much! Much
> > easier to brainwash kids with uneducated unscholarly crap!!! That's why
> > properly educated teachers have a uni degree and study educational
> > methodology and child development. That's why there is extensive
research in
> > education. Forget the experts who may actually know something about
> > education and continue in the Fundamentalist Dark Age.
This would then be eligible to be filed in the "he started it" file! ;-)
Dalene
Stainless Steel Streetrat
writes:
>
>Vic Kulikauskas <v...@mmalt.guild.org> wrote:
>> >
>> I believe the first 4 or 5 responses you received were logical,
>> rational and polite, addressing points (a) and (b) above. Then
>> came a post from Chris, who is, yes, an outspoken fundamentalist,
>> that called your opinion "crap", and you took that to be the
>> TYPICAL response -- why? (Actually, I've been told that there
>> was a post I did not see in which you explained that you had not
>> seen the other posts. If that is so, please accept my
>> apologies.)
>
>Now Jayne - please remember that when Chris responded using the word "crap,"
>it was in direct response to this post by Tindall:
>
Heh, and I'm pretty sure Jayne's *husband* hasn't read the whole thread(s)
while it(they) was happening either <wg>.
Stainless Steel Streetrat
-----------------------------------
"Living is the best revenge" - Conan the Barbarian
Jayne Kulikauskas
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
Mark Tindall wrote:
> > > 4. There are biblical principles that may be used to support the
> validity
> > > of home schooling but not its universal application to all Christians.
> >> One of these is freedom in Christ which is absolute freedom -
Galatians
> 5:1)
> >
> > You may be surprised to learn that your point 4 above is the more common
> > position of posters to this newsgroup.
>
> I have yet to see ANY indication of that in the majority of responses
> (tirade of abuse) that I have read. Galatians 5:1 also gives me absolute
> freedom in Christ to be myself and not have to conform to home schoolers'
> expectations in any matter.
And a few verses later(Gal5:13-15), Paul writes: "You, my brothers, were
called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature;
rather serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single
command: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' If you keep on biting and
devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other."
I suggest that you critically reflect on your behaviour in the light of this
passage. How have you been using your freedom? How have you been serving
in love? Have your words been "biting and devouring"?
And yes, everybody should be reflecting on this, not just you.
[]
> > > the teaching techniques different? How? Why? Would the curricula be
> > > diuferent? How? Why?
> >
> > More's curriculum was similar to that of today's homeschoolers who take
> > the classical approach.
>
> Why a classical approach? Is it ..dare I say ... a reaction against
> modernity as claimed in the literature.
I doubt it. A classical liberal arts education has long been recognized as
an excellent education. It has been the standard for education in this
culture for a long time.
> > > Individulisation is a valid argument. What is a homeschooler also has
> > > several children ...including babies? Is this not also a weakness?
How
> > > can it be overcome?
> >
> > That is a regular topic for discussion on this newsgroup. People who
are in
> > the situation come with the question and others draw on their experience
to
> > answer them. As I recall there is an FAQ on the subject.
>
> It is therefore a weakness, is it not?
Why does it seem so important to you to have people talk about weaknesses in
homeschooling? I suspect that most people don't want to talk about such
things with you because of the perception that you will use it as weapon
against us. If you go around talking about how ignorant homeschoolers are,
they are not likely to talk to you about the obstacles they overcome. This
does not mean that we are not aware of any obstacles or that we do not
critically reflect. It means that we don't want to talk to *you* about
them.
> > > Do you support any financial instuitution that lends money with
> interest?
> > > The bible is against usury.
> >
> > Yes, it is.
> > Do you think trying to tear down people's faith is a good thing?
>
> That was one of the charges laid against St Paul ...and Socrates. The
> unexamined life is unworthy.
But you are not encouraging people to examine their lives. You make them
defensive and even more entrenched in the beliefs you attack. You are
offending and annoying them, to all appearances deliberately. You attack
people's core beliefs and then act surprised that they are not friendly
towards you. I find it hard to understand how a person who claims to be a
professional educator can have such poor people skills. How can you not see
that you are antagonistic?
You claim to have good motives for what you write and you may even believe
that. I think you need to critically reflect on your motives. I think that
you revealed them when you wrote elswhere "If i am attacked repeatedly with
"troll", "moron" and "not a true Christian" then I retaliate twice as much
and asked more difficult questions." You reveal here that your questions
are "retaliation". They are meant to hurt rather than to lead to reflection
as you claim. You do not have our best interests at heart. Stop pretending
that your attacks are for our own good.
I think that I have no more to say to you unless you wish to change your
approach to this newsgroup. I am ready to forgive you and to make peace
with you if you want to try again.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Stainless Steel Streetrat" <stre...@aol.comSpamThis> wrote in message
news:20030820091946...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> In article <bhvr8o$a9q$1...@news.tamu.edu>, "Dalene Barnes"
<dal...@txbarnes.com>
> writes:
>
> >
> >Vic Kulikauskas <v...@mmalt.guild.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> I believe the first 4 or 5 responses you received were logical,
> >> rational and polite, addressing points (a) and (b) above. Then
> >> came a post from Chris, who is, yes, an outspoken fundamentalist,
> >> that called your opinion "crap", and you took that to be the
> >> TYPICAL response -- why? (Actually, I've been told that there
> >> was a post I did not see in which you explained that you had not
> >> seen the other posts. If that is so, please accept my
> >> apologies.)
> >
> >Now Jayne - please remember that when Chris responded using the word
"crap,"
> >it was in direct response to this post by Tindall:
> >
>
> Heh, and I'm pretty sure Jayne's *husband* hasn't read the whole thread(s)
> while it(they) was happening either <wg>.
Vic and I have such unity of purpose that it is difficult to tell us apart.
<g>
Jayne
Dalene Barnes
Sorry! I guess I wrote that pre-coffee saturation, and just remembered the
LAST name. Unity is good!
Dalene
Wayne
<m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Wayne" wrote:
>
>> >Thank you! At last some real meat!!!! You are one of the few on this NG
>> >that critically reflect on home schooling.
>>
>> FYI ---- nobody takes their child out of public school on a wim.
>
>
>A generalisation. Some do ... I have met them.
Correction, I should have said "almost noone" instead of "nobody".
>> My wife and I reseached
>> homeschooling for a year before we took the plunge.
>
>How did you research? What did you read? What were your conclusions about
>the strengths AND weaknesses?
Our first knowledge that there was even such a thing as homeschooling
came from a very positive newspaper article written by a former
educator & former president of the Pennsyvania Education Association
who was involved with school reforms. (FYI - Education Associations
over here tend to be very anti-homeschool since it takes away from
their union bread & butter) I was involved with the reforms on a
local committee and was not impressed. We also received encouragement
from one of the district's teachers, she was impressed by the
homeschooled children she knew. My wife joined two different local
homeschool groups (this was a year before we actually started to
homeschool) and was exposed to the differnt styles and available
cirricula. We too were impressed with the children themselves -----
polite, intellegent, and willing and able to engage adults in
conversation. We read quite a bit about homeschooling ---- I didn't
read any anti-homeschooling books, although I certainly would have if
I found any (do any exist and did they exist 10 years ago?). I
remember reading about the concerns of socialization in education
journals (we subscribed for a year or so) but these fears were put to
rest by observing these children first hand.
>> Every year my daughters have taken standardized tests (our choice, the
>> state requires testing for grades 3, 5, & 8 only) and every year they
>> far exceed the national norms. If they didn't I'd surely be critically
>> reflecting on our educational choices.
>
>You should be critically reflecting regardless of outcome. It is used by all
>prossessional teachers to improve their teaching. One can always improve in
>education ... that is why I am staying on this list.
Every year we "critically reflect" on what subjects to teach, what
materials to use, and what outside classes to utilize. If it seemed
that she was failing either socially or academically I would certainly
rethink homeschooling entirely.
>> Also, don't assume that homeschooling means that parents do all the
>> teaching. We are simply in charge of it's direction.
>
>Good!
>
>
>> I could not have
>> taught my daughter how to play the flute or have done any meaningful
>> art classes with them. Science labs are often done with many families
>> pulling their resources together.
>
>Well done! You are now getting the idea.
Uh, no ----hopefully *you* are the one getting the idea. This is how
we have operated from "day one". This is probably similar to how most
of us direct our children's education.
> How did you choose these people?
Local music store teacher. Art teacher was recommended by friends.
>Why? Why could you not have taught them?
Because I'm not a musician nor an artist.
I could have taught science lab myself but that would have been a
waste of resources. One of the homeschooling parents had a degree in
science, another had the available space for a classroom, and I lent
most of the equipment needed. (I'm a *packrat*-fundy-yank :-)
Everyone payed a nominal fee ($5 a class) to the teacher. A six
student class.
>This is beginning to address the
>strengths AND WEAKNESSES of homeschooling.
The weaknesses are dealt with.
I cannot teach Latin. Someone else does that. Same with music and art.
Socialization is encouraged through outside organizations & field
trips with other homeschoolers.
Our children went to more musuems, theater, & other field trips than
the government schooled. I believe that what would have been assumed
to be a weakness (no school organized trips) has been turned into a
strength.
>> The following links are to a homeschooling organization so of course
>> they are understandably suspect in your mind.
>
>Of course NOT! The only thing that is suspect are people who do not
>actively engage their God given brains. I keep sayiong that there arew
>m,any positive aspects of home schooling but that you jave NOT addresed the
>NEGATIVES & WEAKNESSES. This must be done if you want to improve in your
>teaching ...and if you want to attract other people to your home schooling
>movement. This was a lesson that was hard learnt by the Christian School
>movement.
BTW - One of the most important strengths of homeschooling is that
learning is cultivated as opposed to teaching being force feed to
unwilling students. I am fully confident that my dd could direct her
own education to a large degree.
>> But if you read through them (especially the "Academics" sections) you
>will see >that the studies are based on the standardized testing required in
>many states.
>
>I will read through them and post my replies at a later date. Thanks for
>the links.
It's the second time I posted them, maybe they didn't get through to
you. (BTW - That's why Marty likes to e-mail in *addition* to posting
to the ng)
> This gives me an indication of what you are reading and what
>would be of most help for you.
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
..........................................................
"I have learned throughout my life as a composer chiefly through my
mistakes and pursuits of false assumptions, not by my exposure to
founts of wisdom and knowledge." -- Igor Stravinsky
MaG Douglas
> This is one of the reasons homeschoolers should be very careful! Home
> schooling is dominated by rabid fundamentalists who do not value learning
> for the sake of learning.
"BOB!!"...
> Do you have evidence to support this assertion, or are you speaking
> anecdotally?
"Mark Tindall"...
> Read this NG. ;-)
Reading this NG would be considered anecdotal. Do you have any valid
research that indicates that "homeschooling is dominated by rabid
fundamentalists who do not value learning for the sake of learning?" And if
you do, for which country is the research relevant?
As an aside, I'm curious... as a professional educator are you familiar with
the educational theory of Experiential Learning? That particular theory
indicates that cognitive learning (learning for the sake of learning) is
meaningless, while experiential learning is significant. There are also
several other educational theories that don't support the value of learning
for the sake of learning. Comments?
Also, for the sake of those who might decide to follow this thread and don't
have the benefit of having taken university classes on the topic, can you
please explain the differences between educational theory and methodology?
(While I have learned much about educational theory and methodology myself,
I have never been a classroom teacher and believe, because of your
experience, that you should be better equipped to explain about it to a
group than I am.)
MaG
abacus
> "Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> writes:
> I'm not sure why I'm writing this instead of heading off to work
> early as was my intention. It seems that I'm just repeating what
> must be obvious already, but perhaps something in the way I've
> phrased something may add something to the discussion.
I'm glad you did, I enjoyed your post and it definitely added to the
discussion. I particularly liked the story below.
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Dalene Barnes" <dal...@txbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:bhvvtd$ffk$1...@news.tamu.edu...
You mean you didn't do it on purpose? I thought you were givng us a subtle
message about how confusing it is when both spouses participate in the same
newsgroup and were leading up to a demand that the practice no longer be
allowed. <g>
So, when we are finished with Mark, do you and Chris want to take on Vic and
me doing tag-team posting? <g>
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
"abacus" <abacu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ce9f3a02.03082...@posting.google.com...
> v...@mmalt.guild.org (Vic Kulikauskas) wrote in message
news:<3f434f4d....@mmalt.guild.org>...
> > "Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> writes:
>
> > I'm not sure why I'm writing this instead of heading off to work
> > early as was my intention. It seems that I'm just repeating what
> > must be obvious already, but perhaps something in the way I've
> > phrased something may add something to the discussion.
>
> I'm glad you did, I enjoyed your post and it definitely added to the
> discussion. I particularly liked the story below.
Abacus, I think that you have excellent taste in posts. <g>
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
[]
> This would then be eligible to be filed in the "he started it" file! ;-)
OK, as if this wasn't confusing enough already, when I told Vic that you
said this, he emailed me a reply from work that he wants me to forward to
the ng.
Vic writes:
"Perhaps you could post a message from me saying that I
agree that Mark started it. But even with that provocation, ALMOST ALL the
responses were polite, but got ignored.
You might also ask Mark whether HE has read john Holt and Ivan Illich
himself. He lists their names as if they would disagree with home
schooling!!! Really, he does! Read the original post in this thread. BTW,
he
also lists Rudolph Steiner. I don't think he has even read all the
authorities he's claiming are on his side!"
Jayne
Dalene Barnes
Nah, thanks tho! Let's just take good-natured turns calling each other
"fundy" and "liberal," eh?
;-) Dalene
Dalene Barnes
So, in other words, you're saying that Vic said that Mark said that John
Holt said that Kanga's kittens had mowed a hole in her panty hose? Do I
have this right yet?
Dalene
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > not happened on any "discussion" (abusive tirade!!!) I have experienced
from
> > some of the home skoolers on this NG who refuse to discuss ideas in a
> > logical, rational ...and polite ... manner.
>
> Perhaps you should re-read the history of this conversation (not
> just this thread).
...and ditto. ;-)
> You came to the NG with a proclamation,
> effectively, that people who choose to educate their children
> other than in the institutional school system are all
> a) incompetent to do so, and
> b) motivated solely by closed-mindedness.
That is your interpretation of my words.
> came a post from Chris, who is, yes, an outspoken fundamentalist,
....his post elsewhere prompted my joining here.
> that called your opinion "crap", and you took that to be the
> TYPICAL response -- why? (Actually, I've been told that there
> was a post I did not see in which you explained that you had not
> seen the other posts. If that is so, please accept my
> apologies.)
He is typical of the homeschoolers I have met in Australia. I hjave not
seen all posts. Posts I see I respond to if relevant.
> You have taken Brandon's web page, which, as he has pointed out
> many times, is making a point of the form "If you believe A, then
> that implies B", and kept insisting "but I don't believe A!"
> That's not the point.
It IS the point!!!! An argument based on deduction must have a valid
premise. Idf the p[remise is wrong the conclusion is wrong. Brandon strats
from a faulty premise to get a faulty conclusion. Brandon is also a result
I came here and is also typicsal of Australian homeschoolers. (A pattern
starting to form ....)
>So, when Brandon says that
> his web page is for those who believe in the literal
> interpretation of scripture (A), to convince them that
> home-schooling is right (B), what relevance does it have to point
> out that he hasn't proven A to your satisfaction?
brandon's argument summarised:
A - The bible is absolutely true in every detail. (WRONG!)
B - The bible dictates what Christians must do in general education (WRONG)
C - This proof text verse formn the bible is about general education.(WRONG)
D - This proof text verse from the bible says parents must give general
education to their children (WRONG)
D - Therefore you must place your child in home skooling (ONLY IF ALL THE
ABOVE ARE TRUE ...WHICH THEY AREN'T!)
> You keep repeating over and over and over and over again about
> how trying to teach your children at home is like DIY surgery.
It is!
> The responses to this have been to point out that
> a) an institutionalized school setting is much more like a
> factory than like a modern operating room
I disagree but at least that metaphor is is based on more common sense than
the above "Brandon Theory". ;-)
> b) parent often DO take out splinters and treat minor infections
> without the help of professionals, yet they call upon
> professionals when the situation warrants, which is EXACTLY
> what home-schoolers do (at least the ones I know).
"at least the ones I know" ...the ones I know in Australia do things MUCH
differently! They are the Chris & Brandon types. Remember that Chris and
Brandon & co were my first introduction to your NG as they had posted
similar thoughts elsewhere. It makes you all look like kooks!
> It seems like you're trying to
> argue that one MUST have any splinters removed by a surgeon, and
> that not having a medical professional apply the bandage when a
> kid has scraped themselves is running the grave risk of dying
> from infections. Were you really trying to say that?
No! If your child has a tummy ache how do you know it is not appendicitis,
poisoning, cancer or constipation???? Is any diagnosis done with ANY type
of reasonable background??? Or do you just say: "I talked to a mate whose
appendicitis started the same way THEREFORE it is appendicitis. I will get
a diagnosis of appendicitis from my doctor ...and if the doctor doesn't
agree with me I will keep looking until I find a doctor who will agree with
me" ...and then you eventually find a doctor (though witchdoctor!) who
agrees with you ...therefore every doctor was wrong except you and this
witchdoctor. ... and your child had constiption all the while.
> One finds what one is looking for
......even in visitors. ;-)
A story from me:
My wife and I rented a house from my best friend in the first year of our
marriage. When we had hunted around and saw the house we wanted to buy we
told my friend about a poor couple of HOME SCHOOLERS who were looking for
somewhere to rent but could not afford anything expensive. I had met them
at a local church (aside: but I'm supposedly not a "Trew Kristyun"!) We
helped to negotiate a reduced rent for them. A few years later my friend
rang me up to tell what had happened: The house had to be sold due to major
road works. My friend gave them notice. They could not find a house to
rent. My friend let them stay on longer but told them that the house was
being sold and the final date must be adhered to. The final day came and
they still had nowhere to go! They placed their possessions in a hired
truck and roamed around Sydney because hey were sure God was going to find
them a house that day ...God had told them so through the bible ... It
became night. My friend (a fellow Christian) was worried about them. He
had a unit that was to be let out to another Christian mate. he called up
the mate and told him the problem. That mate agreed to look elsewhere so
that this family would have a house for their children. My friend tracked
down the home schoolers and placed them into the unit meant for someone
else. The HOME SCHOOLERS were now telling everyone about the "miracle" God
had done for them in "miraculously" providing a place to live "through
prayer and faith". BULLSHIT! If it as not for my friend's charity they
would still be roaming around Sydney in their truck!!!! This was my
introduction to homeschooling.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Now Jayne - please remember that when Chris responded using the word
"crap,"
> it was in direct response to this post by Tindall:
>
> This is why fundamentalists love "home skooling" so much! Much
> > > easier to brainwash kids with uneducated unscholarly crap!!! That's
why
> > > properly educated teachers have a uni degree and study educational
> > > methodology and child development. That's why there is extensive
> research in
> > > education. Forget the experts who may actually know something about
> > > education and continue in the Fundamentalist Dark Age.
>
> This would then be eligible to be filed in the "he started it" file! ;-)
Look at CONTEXT ........"This is why FUNDAMENTALISTS love "home skooling" so
much! " .... What was I talking about????? The reasom why fundamentalists
like Chris choose homeschooling!!!! NOT ALL HOMESCHOOLERS!!!!! Since
everyone seemed to agree with Chris I assumed (perhaps wriongly) that most
here MUST be fundamentalists. After all, Brandon had expoused the same
theory!
Mark and Bev Tindall
> You might also ask Mark whether HE has read john Holt and Ivan Illich
> himself.
Yes ... their work is a bit ancient now but relevant back in the 70s.
Remember I wrote:
********************
>> Illich's "Deschooling Society" from the 70s ... a good book for its day
... but
>>there are better and more up to date resources around.
> Geesh, do I get a point for quoting Illich but lose a point for it
> being out of date? I had that quote in my sig file.
Why? Paulo Freire (similar time) was a much better writer and thinker ...
and a Christian.
**********************
I also wrote on the same day ....
************************
There is good and bad in any teaching system. Nothing is perfect. Having
said that my experience of public schooling and Christian schooling in
Australia over the past 30 years has formed some conclusions that are not
entirely worthless. In that time I have had friends who have homeschooled
and have been in contact with home schoolers asking for advice and help.
You may not like what I have to say but unless there is negative feedback
you
will never improve in the areas that need improvement. I could also give
positive feedback on the nurturing side of home schooling (which I see as
valuable) but, frankly, I am not going to spend hours and hours on this NG.
If everyone agrees with how wonderful things are you get group think and
stagnation. As homeschoolers you should be ever learning. "Lifetime
learning" is the new catch phrase. What are you doing in this area for
both yourselves and your children????
All truth is God's truth. Value truth and actively seek it.
*********************************
> also lists Rudolph Steiner. I don't think he has even read all the
> authorities he's claiming are on his side!"
I never said that these people were against home schooling. I did say that
it would be a good idea if ALL homeschoolers had read these people as a
starting point for theuir own critiucal reflection. I doubt whether either
Chris or Brandon have even heard of the people let alone read them!
This is what I actually stated ..........
**********************************
Below is a critique of
http://www.brandonstaggs.com/biblical-reasons-to-home-school.html which is
typical of most Christian fundamentalist home schoolers' erroneous beliefs
on education ...mainly based on Old Testament proof verses.
Those who want a background to my reading for this critique, written in one
sitting tonight, would do well to read the works of Plato (on Socrates),
Paulo Friere, John Holt, Maria Monetssori, Rudolph Steiner, Jerome S Bruner,
E B Castle, Elizabeth Lawrence, Edwin Judge, Brian V Hill, William Barclay,
Rousseau, Dewey, A S Neil, R S Peters, Ivan Illich and the rest of the gang
that contributed in the past to the art of good educational practice in the
21st century.
********************************
THINK & REREAD! "Those who want a background to my reading for this
critique ... would do well to read the works of ....and the rest of the
gang that contributed in the past to the art of good educational practice in
the 21st century." These are the people who have influenced my thought.
I also wrote:
****************************
> How many schools of Education are you familiar with?
In Australia: Public (NSW, Vic, SA, Q'land, WA, Tasmania, NT) Christian
schools (Christian Community Schools, Parent Controlled Christian Schools,
Accelerated Christian Schooling) Seventh Day Adventist Schools, Catholic
Schools, Rudolph Steiner Schools, Montesori Schools, selected private
schools including Sydney Grammar, Maitland Grammar & Newington College.
**********************************
&
*************************
Charlotte Mason was a favourite of Susan Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer's
daughter) who wrote a book on her methods.
There are many differing philosophies of education. Do a search at
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Philosophy/Philosophy_of_Education/
*****************************
Now ...are there any more barbs that people want to throw at me????
Is your Inquisition finished or still continuing????
Any questions????
Brandon
> > came a post from Chris, who is, yes, an outspoken fundamentalist,
>
> ....his post elsewhere prompted my joining here.
Aha! Chris, consider yourself beat with a wet noodle.
--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > I have yet to see ANY indication of that in the majority of responses
> > (tirade of abuse) that I have read. Galatians 5:1 also gives me
absolute
> > freedom in Christ to be myself and not have to conform to home
schoolers'
> > expectations in any matter.
>
> And a few verses later(Gal5:13-15), Paul writes:
Yes! I know all about the Trew Kristyun luv shown on this NG ....not
interested in that type, thank you very much. [snigger] We should also
follow Jesus. Read Matthew 23 ... Jesus was not so meek and mild. Nor was
Paul when he suggsted that the circumcisors be castrated. I agree with Dr
Peter cameron that "Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met .... at
least with a very vitriolic pen." (Peter Cameron is Australia's only living
heretic ...thrown out of the fundamentalist Austyralian Presbyterian Church
for daring to suggest that women should be ordained. A hero!)
> Why does it seem so important to you to have people talk about weaknesses
in
> homeschooling? I suspect that most people don't want to talk about such
> things with you because of the perception that you will use it as weapon
> against us.
Perhaps. It is about building a culture of inquiry and transformation.
> If you go around talking about how ignorant homeschoolers are,
Fundamentalist home skoolers like few I have tangled with here are ignorant.
Let's not beat around the bush! I also acknowledge that there are many home
schoolers doing an excellent job. How about trying to raise the standard
...especially for those at the bottom?
> > > Do you think trying to tear down people's faith is a good thing?
> >
> > That was one of the charges laid against St Paul ...and Socrates. The
> > unexamined life is unworthy.
>
> But you are not encouraging people to examine their lives.
What is reflective practice???? Doews it not contain elements of critical
reflection??? Enlighten this moronic troll who is not a Trew Kristyun.
[snigger]
> You make them
> defensive and even more entrenched in the beliefs you attack. You are
> offending and annoying them, to all appearances deliberately. You attack
> people's core beliefs and then act surprised that they are not friendly
> towards you.
.... Just like Jesus and Paul!!!! They were seen as trouble makers!!!
> I think that I have no more to say to you unless you wish to change your
> approach to this newsgroup. I am ready to forgive you and to make peace
> with you if you want to try again.
I ask for your forgiveness so, no matter how much I annoy you, you have to
forgive me seventy times seven in the one day. (Luke 17:5)
Mark and Bev Tindall
> >> > This is one of the reasons homeschoolers should be very careful!
Home
> >> > schooling is dominated by rabid fundamentalists who do not value
>>> > learning for the sake of learning.
> >> Do you have evidence to support this assertion, or are you speaking
> >> anecdotally?
> > Read this NG. ;-)
...............
> Certainly, one of the characteristics that comes through very
> clearly in this NG is that it's dominated by people who value
> learning for the sake of learning
Mmmm ............ "domination" ....since my time on this NG I haven't seen
it. It may be the case. There are few worthwhile posts ...which I have
acknowledged. How many people did I previously plonk because I don't
tolerate fools very well???? ....I'll have to count them ....
> As somebody pointed out earlier, one's opinion of home-schooling
> can be very different depending on what cross-section of home-
> schoolers one has been exposed to.
What cross section have I been exposed to???? .....mmmm ........critically
reflecting ....
Jayne Kulikauskas
Just to show there's no hard feelings, I want to nominate your rendition of
"Be Our Guest" for the mehsc Song of the Year Award.
<g>
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
[]
> > I think that I have no more to say to you unless you wish to change your
> > approach to this newsgroup. I am ready to forgive you and to make peace
> > with you if you want to try again.
>
>
> I ask for your forgiveness so, no matter how much I annoy you, you have to
> forgive me seventy times seven in the one day. (Luke 17:5)
Do you really mean it? Are you sorry for how you've behaved and willing to
try to change?
Jayne
Jon Houts
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Wayne wrote:
> "Mark and Bev Tindall" wrote:
>
> >You should be critically reflecting regardless of outcome. It is used by all
> >prossessional teachers to improve their teaching. One can always improve in
> >education ... that is why I am staying on this list.
"all professional teachers"? Yeah, right.
> >I keep sayiong that there arew
> >m,any positive aspects of home schooling but that you jave NOT addresed the
> >NEGATIVES & WEAKNESSES. This must be done if you want to improve in your
> >teaching ...and if you want to attract other people to your home schooling
> >movement. This was a lesson that was hard learnt by the Christian School
> >movement.
>
> BTW
"Bev Tindall Wins"? I didn't even know she was playing.
but,but...
Jon
Jon Houts
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> "Mark and Bev Tindall" wrote
> > I ask for your forgiveness so, no matter how much I annoy you, you have to
> > forgive me seventy times seven in the one day. (Luke 17:5)
Luke 17:5 "And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith."
but,but...Mark's fingers seem to slip a lot on the keyboard...he probably
meant Luke 17:4 "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and
seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt
forgive him."
but,but...that only seven times, not seventy times seven, which comes from
Matthew 18:22 "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven
times: but, Until seventy times seven." but,but... nothing there about "in
one day."
> Do you really mean it? Are you sorry for how you've behaved and willing to
> try to change?
Seems he skipped over Luke 17:3 "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother
trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
Have you repented, Mark?
Jon
Wayne
<m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote:
>
>> You might also ask Mark whether HE has read john Holt and Ivan Illich
>> himself.
>
>Yes ... their work is a bit ancient now but relevant back in the 70s.
>Remember I wrote:
>
>********************
>>> Illich's "Deschooling Society" from the 70s ... a good book for its day
>... but
>>>there are better and more up to date resources around.
>> Geesh, do I get a point for quoting Illich but lose a point for it
>> being out of date? I had that quote in my sig file.
>Why? Paulo Freire (similar time) was a much better writer and thinker ...
>and a Christian.
Sorry but I don't limit my reading material to Christians only.
>
>I also wrote on the same day ....
>
>************************
>
>There is good and bad in any teaching system. Nothing is perfect. Having
>said that my experience of public schooling and Christian schooling in
>Australia over the past 30 years has formed some conclusions that are not
>entirely worthless. In that time I have had friends who have homeschooled
>and have been in contact with home schoolers asking for advice and help.
>You may not like what I have to say but unless there is negative feedback
>you
>will never improve in the areas that need improvement. I could also give
>positive feedback on the nurturing side of home schooling (which I see as
>valuable) but, frankly, I am not going to spend hours and hours on this NG.
>If everyone agrees with how wonderful things are you get group think and
>stagnation. As homeschoolers you should be ever learning. "Lifetime
>learning" is the new catch phrase.
Really? It was the catchphrase here over a decade ago.
Actually it's what homeschooling is all about. Creating learners. And
being a good example is the best way to do that. Just seeing the
parents reading will encourage a child to have the desire to read.
> What are you doing in this area for
>both yourselves and your children????
>
>All truth is God's truth. Value truth and actively seek it.
>
>*********************************
>
>> also lists Rudolph Steiner. I don't think he has even read all the
>> authorities he's claiming are on his side!"
>
>I never said that these people were against home schooling. I did say that
>it would be a good idea if ALL homeschoolers had read these people as a
>starting point for theuir own critiucal reflection. I doubt whether either
>Chris or Brandon have even heard of the people let alone read them!
There you go again. Do you walk around all day imagining that you are
talking over everyone's head? <snigger, snigger>
>This is what I actually stated ..........
>
>**********************************
>Below is a critique of
>http://www.brandonstaggs.com/biblical-reasons-to-home-school.html which is
<snip>
>*************************
>Charlotte Mason was a favourite of Susan Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer's
>daughter) who wrote a book on her methods.
>
>There are many differing philosophies of education. Do a search at
>
>http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Philosophy/Philosophy_of_Education/
>
>*****************************
>
>Now ...are there any more barbs that people want to throw at me????
If you dish, ya gotta expect to take.
>
>Is your Inquisition finished or still continuing????
Inquisition? We didn't even bring out the comfy chair!
>Any questions????
You didn't expect an Inquisition, did you?
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
..........................................................
"You know what the problem is here. The fence isn't just around the
farm. It's up here, in your heads." -- Ginger, the movie "Chicken
Run"
Jon Houts
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Wayne wrote:
> "Mark and Bev Tindall" wrote:
>
> > "Lifetime learning" is the new catch phrase.
>
> Really? It was the catchphrase here over a decade ago.
That's about what I've heard the lag is for most things trendy. Of
course, down under (at least accoding to how Mark defined it elsewhere)
lifetime learning is when adults are mandated to learn a certain set of
things.
but,but...
Jon
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Jon Houts" <hou...@tcfreenet.org> wrote in message
news:20030820221235...@tcfreenet.org...
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>
> > "Mark and Bev Tindall" wrote
>
> > > I ask for your forgiveness so, no matter how much I annoy you, you
have to
> > > forgive me seventy times seven in the one day. (Luke 17:5)
>
> Luke 17:5 "And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith."
>
> but,but...Mark's fingers seem to slip a lot on the keyboard...he probably
> meant Luke 17:4 "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and
> seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt
> forgive him."
>
> but,but...that only seven times, not seventy times seven, which comes from
> Matthew 18:22 "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven
> times: but, Until seventy times seven." but,but... nothing there about "in
> one day."
Thanks for getting the details straightened out, Jon. It is easy to confuse
synoptic accounts like that. That's why I usually check verses before I
quote them, even if I think I remember them.
Jayne
Papa Koca
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:25:19 +1000, "Mark and Bev Tindall"
> <m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Any questions????
>
>
> You didn't expect an Inquisition, did you?
>
> Wayne
Cue theme:
;-)
--
Papa Koca - SAHD for 6 - Keeper of the Perpetual Kindergarten
Send me email from: http://homepage.mac.com/papakoca/
Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because
more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in
the world.
Sylvia Steiger
curious, I studied Maria Montessori's writings when my kids were still
babies, and anyone who claims her theories contradict homeschooling is
just plain ignorant. Allowing the child to set his own pace, taking
advantage of the "teachable moment," recognizing that each child has her
own learning style and the teacher needs to accommodate this with
different types of material -- sound familiar to anyone else? Actually,
the only type of school my kids have ever been in (besides our home) WAS
a Montessori school, when I was still working full-time, because I was
familiar with her theories and wanted that type of environment for my
kids until we were ready to HS.
(and he DIDN'T include any Biblical reasons to not homeschool ... no
flies on me, my very first day reading this group and I already figured
out he's either a troll or an idiot)
--
Sylvia Steiger RN, homeschooling mom since Nov 1995
http://www.SteigerFamily.com
Cheyenne WY, USDA zone 5a, Sunset zone 1a
Home of the Wyoming Wind Festival, January 1-December 31
Remove "removethis" from address to reply
Jon Houts
> *************************
> Charlotte Mason was a favourite of Susan Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer's
> daughter) who wrote a book on her methods.
This was the first I had ever heard of Susan Schaeffer. The next day,
at playgroup, one of the moms mentioned just having read this. Around
here, that's called a B-M (Baader-Meinhof).
While I was reflecting on this B-M that I had had, I got a news report
forwarded by email about the passing of Idi Amin. That news report
mentioned the Baader-Meinhof gang. This was *not* a B-M, but a JOJ
(Joy of juxtaposition).
but,but...
Jon
Jon Houts
kanga mom
> "Mark and Bev Tindall" wrote
>
> > *************************
> > Charlotte Mason was a favourite of Susan Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer's
> > daughter) who wrote a book on her methods.
>
> This was the first I had ever heard of Susan Schaeffer.
Nah, it's just the first time you were paying attention and using the old
c.r. :-P
Did a search on google, found mention of Susan Schaeffer Macaulay and her
book, For the Children's Sake, had been made on these dates:
Dec. 23, '98
July 8, '00
April 15, '98
April 3, '98
August 15, '96
Oct. 14, '98
Sept. 7, '97
June 19, '96
And a couple mentions in '94.
The next day,
> at playgroup, one of the moms mentioned just having read this. Around
> here, that's called a B-M (Baader-Meinhof).
>
> While I was reflecting on this B-M that I had had, I got a news report
> forwarded by email about the passing of Idi Amin. That news report
> mentioned the Baader-Meinhof gang. This was *not* a B-M, but a JOJ
> (Joy of juxtaposition).
>
> but,but...
> Jon
Kewl. That's the first time I'd ever heard of Baader-Meinhof.
Thanks,
Kanga
Vic Kulikauskas
???
What does their behaviour have to do with home schooling?
Mark and Bev Tindall
> >Paulo Freire (similar time) was a much better writer and thinker ...
> >and a Christian.
>
> Sorry but I don't limit my reading material to Christians only.
Neither do I.
> There you go again. Do you walk around all day imagining that you are
> talking over everyone's head?
Well ... certainly over yours. Are your medications working? Are you still
pacified by Monty Python?
> >Now ...are there any more barbs that people want to throw at me????
> If you dish, ya gotta expect to take.
Ditto! ;-)
> >Is your Inquisition finished or still continuing????
> Inquisition? We didn't even bring out the comfy chair!
Oh no ...not the comfy chair!!!!
> >Any questions????
> You didn't expect an Inquisition, did you?
Yes. When people are SO desperate that they have to do a Goodgle check on
you ...... all things are probable. ...nothing unusual ...I'm used to
fundamentalists and their stonings, crucifixions and inquisitions ... part
of their horrible fundamental nature ...maybe because their brain is
contained in their fundament ... hence the name "FUNDAMENT- alist"
Mark and Bev Tindall
A story about a "poor couple of HOME SCHOOLERS"
One finds what one is looking for ...even in visitors.
Mark and Bev Tindall
> Not that the Tindalls will benefit from this, but for anyone genuinely
> curious, I studied Maria Montessori's writings when my kids were still
> babies, and anyone who claims her theories contradict homeschooling is
> just plain ignorant.
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT!!! READ AGAIN .............
**********************************
Below is a critique of
http://www.brandonstaggs.com/biblical-reasons-to-home-school.html which is
typical of most Christian fundamentalist home schoolers' erroneous beliefs
on education ...mainly based on Old Testament proof verses.
Those who want a background to my reading for this critique, written in one
sitting tonight, would do well to read the works of ...[snip] ....Maria
Monetssori
and the rest of the gang that contributed in the past to the art of good
educational practice in the 21st century.
********************************
Your FALSE GOSSIP is revealed!!!! Maria Monetssori is among the list of
good educators that have inspired me. It is NOT about my being
anti-homeschooling or her supposedly commenting on it!!!
Learn English comprehension!
I also stated .................
************************
There is good and bad in any teaching system. Nothing is perfect. Having
said that my experience of public schooling and Christian schooling in
Australia over the past 30 years has formed some conclusions that are not
entirely worthless. In that time I have had friends who have homeschooled
and have been in contact with home schoolers asking for advice and help.
You may not like what I have to say but unless there is negative feedback
you will never improve in the areas that need improvement. I could also
give
positive feedback on the nurturing side of home schooling (which I see as
valuable) but, frankly, I am not going to spend hours and hours on this NG.
If everyone agrees with how wonderful things are you get group think and
stagnation. As homeschoolers you should be ever learning. "Lifetime
learning" is the new catch phrase. What are you doing in this area for
both yourselves and your children????
All truth is God's truth. Value truth and actively seek it.
*********************************
> (and he DIDN'T include any Biblical reasons to not homeschool
They are no bible verses either for or against.
>my very first day reading this group and I already figured
> out he's either a troll or an idiot)
Another "Trew Kristyun" fundamentalist with an ad hominem attack ...How many
is that now?????
> Sylvia Steiger RN, homeschooling mom since Nov 1995
...and fundamentalist FOOL ... in the true sense of both words!
... a wise man will make better use of an idle pamphlet than a fool will do
of sacred Scripture. ( John Milton)
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so
unlike your Christ. (Mahatma Gandhi)
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > I ask for your forgiveness so, no matter how much I annoy you, you have
to
> > forgive me seventy times seven in the one day. (Luke 17:5)
>
> Do you really mean it?
Jesus in this bible verse doesn't say I have to mean it. Jesus says I have
to ask and that you should obey. ( .... and yes it should be verse 4
...memory slipped.)
> Are you sorry for how you've behaved and willing to try to change?
Are the Trew Kristyun fundamentalists on this "christian" NG [snigger]
willing to do likewise for their sins against me????? Do they repent of
their repeated ad hominem attacks, misquotes and character assassination of
my character???
Now ...are there any more barbs that people want to throw at me????
Is the Inquisition finished or still continuing???? Is it now time for my
crucifixion or stoning????
Any questions????
Wayne
<m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>"Wayne" wrote:
>
>> >Paulo Freire (similar time) was a much better writer and thinker ...
>> >and a Christian.
>>
>> Sorry but I don't limit my reading material to Christians only.
>
>Neither do I.
>
Right about here you snipped this:
____________________________________________________
Mark:
>If everyone agrees with how wonderful things are you get group think and
>stagnation. As homeschoolers you should be ever learning. "Lifetime
>learning" is the new catch phrase.
Wayne:
Really? It was the catchphrase here over a decade ago.
Actually it's what homeschooling is all about. Creating learners. And
being a good example is the best way to do that. Just seeing the
parents reading will encourage a child to have the desire to read.
______________________________________________________
Back to this post.
Here is where you could have said something about education, but you
chose to snip instead. This is some of the behavior that causes us to
consider you a troll.
>> There you go again. Do you walk around all day imagining that you are
>> talking over everyone's head?
>
>Well ... certainly over yours.
There you go again. Really though, you do come across as a smug "name
dropper". Maybe you just have to "clean up" your internet personna.
Please tell me you don't name drop & go "snigger, snigger" in real
life. And I doubt if you are talking over anyone's head here in any
real substantial way. You *really* have no idea who you're talking to.
> Are your medications working? Are you still
>pacified by Monty Python?
I've stopped self-medicating myself decades ago so I guess (I hope)
they have stopped working! Monty Python is one of the running jokes we
have around here, I'm not the big Monty Python fan here.
>> >Now ...are there any more barbs that people want to throw at me????
>> If you dish, ya gotta expect to take.
>
>Ditto! ;-)
>
>
>> >Is your Inquisition finished or still continuing????
>> Inquisition? We didn't even bring out the comfy chair!
>
>Oh no ...not the comfy chair!!!!
>
>
>> >Any questions????
>> You didn't expect an Inquisition, did you?
>
>Yes. When people are SO desperate that they have to do a Goodgle check on
Oh, we've got to spend our time doing something while waiting for any
substantial answers from you! BTW, you could be doing exactly that
instead of making fun of names over in alt.christnet.public
Remember,
Great minds discuss ideas;
Average minds discuss events;
Small minds discuss people.
Now if you would be so kind as to respond to the posts that discuss
the strengths & weaknesses of homeschooling. Or are they being
"ploinked" in your killfile? Or are they just not getting through to
your server in a timely fashion? Of course e-mailing them to you would
be out of the question. BTW - one of the traits of a troll is that the
discussion *has* to be carried out in the ng so as to show off the
troll's imagined superiority.
>you ...... all things are probable. ...nothing unusual ...I'm used to
>fundamentalists and their stonings, crucifixions and inquisitions ... part
>of their horrible fundamental nature ...maybe because their brain is
>contained in their fundament ... hence the name "FUNDAMENT- alist"
>
>
Wayne
Wayne D. Schissler
http://members.aol.com/selah1998/
..........................................................
"I have learned throughout my life as a composer chiefly through my
mistakes and pursuits of false assumptions, not by my exposure to
founts of wisdom and knowledge." -- Igor Stravinsky
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Wayne" <schi...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:3f44a02f....@news.enter.net...
[]
> I've stopped self-medicating myself decades ago so I guess (I hope)
> they have stopped working! Monty Python is one of the running jokes we
> have around here, I'm not the big Monty Python fan here.
[]
I remember when Doc was in his early teens we did a Monty Python unit study.
He watched every bit of Monty Python he could find and we used them as a
springboard for discussions of politics, religion, philosophy and the nature
of humour.
It wasn't a true unit study of course, but we liked calling it that.
Jayne
L. Miller
<m_b_t...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>> This was my
>> > introduction to homeschooling.
>>
So, because the first homeschoolers you met were idiots all
homeschoolers are idiots.
Jayne Kulikauskas
>
> > > I ask for your forgiveness so, no matter how much I annoy you, you
have
> to
> > > forgive me seventy times seven in the one day. (Luke 17:5)
> >
> > Do you really mean it?
>
> Jesus in this bible verse doesn't say I have to mean it. Jesus says I
have
> to ask and that you should obey. ( .... and yes it should be verse 4
> ...memory slipped.)
What translation are you using? I'm not aware of any that say "ask
forgiveness" in Lk 17:4. The usual translation is "repent" which is
probably how I would translate "metanoeo" also. I suppose that "have a
change of heart", "turn from one's sins" or "change one's way" could work
too, but I can't see using "ask forgiveness".
> > Are you sorry for how you've behaved and willing to try to change?
>
> Are the Trew Kristyun fundamentalists on this "christian" NG [snigger]
> willing to do likewise for their sins against me????? Do they repent of
> their repeated ad hominem attacks, misquotes and character assassination
of
> my character???
I saw very few ad hominem attacks, etc. The same passage you quote tells us
that we are to rebuke those that sin against us and to forgive them when
they repent. Most of the negative comments that I saw others making looked
to me like people justly rebuking you. However, there were some comments
that I considered inappropriate and I hope that the people who made them
repent. Have I personally said anything that offended you? I am willing to
apologize and repent.
> Now ...are there any more barbs that people want to throw at me????
>
> Is the Inquisition finished or still continuing???? Is it now time for my
> crucifixion or stoning????
>
> Any questions????
Why are you staying here if that is how you perceive yourself being treated?
You could just go. That is what I would suggest you do if you have no
intention of changing your behaviour.
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Sylvia Steiger" <Sylv...@REMOVETHIScanada.com> wrote in message
news:_PX0b.161568$Oz4.43740@rwcrnsc54...
[]
> (and he DIDN'T include any Biblical reasons to not homeschool ... no
> flies on me, my very first day reading this group and I already figured
> out he's either a troll or an idiot)
Aha! I was right; you are new to the group. Welcome again. The current
discussion is a recent development. It was preceded by a long period of
calm. I can see that Mark has been directing some comments at you. I hope
they do not distress you and that you are enjoying the newsgroup. Are you
new to newsgroups in general? Would you like any pointers about
terminology, acronyms or netiquette? Just ask if you need any help.
We sometimes go beyond discussing homeschooling here. We have had some very
interesting discussions of Scripture on this newsgroup with many
knowledgeable people with a variety of perspectives. There is some question
of whether they are strictly on topic but that is rarely a concern here.
Most people don't mind going off topic as long as discussions are amicable.
We had a discussion here some time ago about whether it was appropriate for
Christians to call people things like "moron" and "idiot". Some people
thought that Matt 5:22 (But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his
brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his
brother, 'Raca" is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'You
fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.) applied. Others seemed sure
that it did not.
Even if you are one of the people who sees nothing wrong with calling people
idiots, could you consider refraining? I feel very uncomfortable around it
and would take it as a favour if you could avoid language like that. Thank
you.
Jayne
Dalene Barnes
other's company and posts and diversity!
Jayne Kulikauskas <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> We had a discussion here some time ago about whether it was
> appropriate for Christians to call people things like "moron" and
> "idiot". Some people thought that Matt 5:22 (But I tell you that
> anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement.
> Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca" is answerable to the
> Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the
> fire of hell.) applied. Others seemed sure that it did not.
> Even if you are one of the people who sees nothing wrong with calling
> people idiots, could you consider refraining? I feel very
> uncomfortable around it and would take it as a favour if you could
> avoid language like that. Thank you.
On the other hand (but still trying to be nice...!) some of us are equally
comfortable calling spades spades, white washed sepulchurs of dead men's
bones just that, sons of the devils what they really are, and proven trolls
trolls.
The difference comes in that some of us immediately discern by statements
such as "God hates me...." and "the Bible is NOT true" yet still CLAIM to be
Christian, that this person is most likely NOT a brother, and therefore,
comes closer application of the sepulchur thing than the racca thing.
HOWEVER, there is still much wisdom and experience to be gleaned from those
with opposing points of view, and we try to overlook such differences in
favor of the applicable wisdom.
Joyful day,
Dalene
Chris Barnes
> Allowing the child to set his own pace, taking
> advantage of the "teachable moment," recognizing that each child has
> her own learning style and the teacher needs to accommodate this with
> different types of material -- sound familiar to anyone else?
Actually, this was a HUGE part of the adult education courses I took
when I was getting my Masters degree (I had thought I might want to
teach at a university somewhere (before I realized I really didn't want
to play the politics & publish or perish games).
HS fit's in with the practical aspects of education theory quite well.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
Chris Barnes
> You didn't expect an Inquisition, did you?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
(from an old Monty Python skit)
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Welcome, Sylvia! We do have a diverse group here, and mostly enjoy each
> other's company and posts and diversity!
>
> Jayne Kulikauskas <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > We had a discussion here some time ago about whether it was
> > appropriate for Christians to call people things like "moron" and
> > "idiot". Some people thought that Matt 5:22 (But I tell you that
> > anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement.
> > Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca" is answerable to the
> > Sanhedrin. But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the
> > fire of hell.) applied. Others seemed sure that it did not.
> > Even if you are one of the people who sees nothing wrong with calling
> > people idiots, could you consider refraining? I feel very
> > uncomfortable around it and would take it as a favour if you could
> > avoid language like that. Thank you.
>
> On the other hand (but still trying to be nice...!) some of us are equally
> comfortable calling spades spades, white washed sepulchurs of dead men's
> bones just that, sons of the devils what they really are, and proven
trolls
> trolls.
I don't have much problem with saying that people are trolls. For me that
is a description of behaviour rather than an insult if it really does
describe what they are doing.
> The difference comes in that some of us immediately discern by statements
> such as "God hates me...." and "the Bible is NOT true" yet still CLAIM to
be
> Christian, that this person is most likely NOT a brother, and therefore,
> comes closer application of the sepulchur thing than the racca thing.
I don't expect people to say that they think somebody is a Christian when
they don't really think so. I can see that it is valid to tell people that
your understandings of Christianity are so different that you don't consider
them Christians.
The sort of thing that bothers me is calling people names. The purpose of
saying them seems to be to insult or hurt people rather than to convey any
information. "Idiot" and "moron", for example, almost never refer to
subnormal intelligence which is their literal meaning. They are usually
just ways to say "I don't like you."
(Actually, Sylvia did use "idiot" with its literal meaning in her post that
triggered my comments on this. I was just using it as a starting point
since I had been wanting to raise this subject.)
> HOWEVER, there is still much wisdom and experience to be gleaned from
those
> with opposing points of view, and we try to overlook such differences in
> favor of the applicable wisdom.
Exactly! I think that we receive a lot of benefit from seeing opposing
points of view represented here. We have developed a virtual community in
which it is possible to disagree with people while liking and respecting
them.
Jayne
Chris Barnes
> So, because the first homeschoolers you met were idiots all
> homeschoolers are idiots.
Well, those people were only 'idiots' according to him. Consider the
source. While they might well have been, I would have to give them the
benifit of the doubt.
MaG Douglas
>
> Remember that Chris and Brandon & co were my first
> introduction to your NG as they had posted similar thoughts
> elsewhere. It makes you all look like kooks!
Incorrect. The first regulars that you encounter via crossposting were, in
order of postings: Sheri Payne (Apr.), Wayne (Apr.), Jayne (8/12 &13),
Raymond Griffith (8/13), Chris (8/13), Scott Bryce (8/13), and Wayne{getting
involved in the second round (8/13)} And out of all the reasoned or at least
reasonable responses you choose the response that was as equally insulting
as your own to this group had been before that.
At one point, Vic (or perhaps it was Jayne disguised as Vic) commented about
your ignoring the reasonable responses and responding to the *one* impolite
reply. But you ignored that part of his post and continued your crusade to
educate homeschoolers that you know next to nothing about. Finally, a couple
days later, when you did reply to that part of the post you claimed, "I have
only just joined this NG. The other posts were not sent to where I usually
lurk." Again, that is incorrect. Fact: *All* of the posts were posted to the
same set of groups as Chris's. Therefore, while you may claim you somehow
didn't see them, it is wrong to claim they weren't sent to where you would
see them.
The thread that ultimately attracted your attention was originally
crossposted back in April. At which time the original poster, who wasn't a
regular of this ng, massively crossposted an introduction and question
about a certain type of curriculum. Two regulars of this group responded in
Apr. (leaving the posts crossposted.) One of those respondents suggested the
original poster not crosspost and the other gave a review of the curriculum
because they had used it. The original poster demonstrated that he didn't
just grab a curriculum because everyone else used it and the responses
demonstrated that "critical reflection" that you seem fond of.
In June, over a month after the original comments were made in this thread
your first message crossposted into this group in reply to someone who has
never posted in this group, except for crossposts.
Your second, also in June, posting into this group was a reply to the
original poster and contained several assumptions, an inflammatory label
applied because of an assumption, several implied insults, and a
confrontational challenge.
Your third post, on 8/12, also in reply to someone who has only posted to
this ng via crossposting contained the brilliant and scholarly reply, "Yes
...make them use their God given brains. A pity you don't do the same! TALK
TO THE HAND"
Your fourth posting (also 8/12) was in reply to a newbie who joined the
group at the beginning of Aug. In the newbie's post, she spoke of the good
and bad things that had occurred since her children began to attend a public
school after homeschooling. She also encouraged parents to teach their
children to think. In your reply you immediately threw out your credentials
of teaching for 30 yrs in public and Christian schools, then went on to snip
*all* of the good things she said, and began talking about the flaws of
homeschooling.
Jayne, a regular whose name might ring a bell with you, replied with one
advantage of homeschooling, which was: "Not being tossed about from
educational trend to trend..." And then on 8/13, *before* you saw *anything*
from either Chris or Brandon, you came up with the conclusion that Jayne's
statement somehow indicated that she was advocating remaining uneducated and
ignorant. Then proceeded on with a tirade against fundamentalists, mocking
homeschoolers by misspelling the word and making a claim that fundamentalist
homeschoolers preferred to "brainwash" their kids by using "uneducated
unscholarly crap!!!" Then you went on to indicate that parents weren't
adequate as teachers unless they had a "uni degree and study educational
methodology and child development." You furthered your insult by insinuating
that homeschoolers ignore educational research and are unwilling to admit
that someone might know more than they do about education. Then you added an
excerpt of your hero's work.
That's when Chris got involved and you replied to him by telling him his
facts were merely subjective opinions and that he ought to attend an
accredited university. Unfortunately, your assumption that Chris had not
done so amazed us with your arrogant ignorance since he has a degree from
and currently holds a prestigious position at Texas A&M University. (And
lest we forget, Raymond Griffith *did* tell Chris his response wasn't
helpful.)
From that point on you continued your tirade against fundamentalists, which
included plenty of slams against homeschoolers in general, and also made a
lot of unsupported foolish statements that were made strictly from your
bias. (The one where you called an atheist a brain dead fundamentalist is a
classic.)
Another Fact: Brandon was *not* part of your first introduction to this
group.
His first comments were made *after* you joined *this* ng. He commented
about: your tendency to quote your credentials (the truth) and added his
opinion that that is why degrees are overrated; He asked you to define
fundamentalist more in-depth, because your statement that it is a fear of
modernity is incorrect according to the dictionary; He also stated that he
had to get help outside the public school when he was diagnosed (by the
public school) as having dyslexia; Finally, he also asked for further
clarification on a few other points you made and for a link to the research
that would support your claim that the homeschoolers in Australia do so to
keep their children hidden from the world.
He questions should be simple to answer for a person like you who values
critical reflection. I don't know why you immediately decided to attack him
and his values, just because he asked you some questions, but I can answer
one of them. The only research in Australia to date on the reasons people
choose homeschooling *don't* support your claim that it is to hide their
children from the outside world. I know... I looked it up. Compared to
Australia, the USA has huge amounts of research about homeschooling.
Bottomline: After critically reflecting and researching the history of this
thread, your claims that Chris and Brandon were your introduction to this ng
and that Chris was the cause of your tirade against fundamentalists in this
group are just plain wrong. You arrived here with a confrontational post and
quickly proceeded to making wrong assumptions and insinuations about the
people in this group. You state you are a Christian so I'm telling you, you
are behaving in an argumentative way and appear to prefer to blame others
for your behavior. You are wrong and would be wise to stop.
Perhaps you could critically reflect on how you looked with your original
posts here. And before you continue saying others are to blame for your
actions, take responsibility for your part in your own behavior.
MaG
And now to say "hi" to an old friend... Miquelon! (Did you get to the bottom
of this post Jon?)
Chris Barnes
> I don't have much problem with saying that people are trolls. For me
> that is a description of behaviour rather than an insult if it really
> does describe what they are doing.
There isn't much of a difference between "troll" and "moron/idiot".
Unless you hold trolls in a higher regard than I do. To me, calling
someone a troll *is* an insult - and a fairly strong one at that.
> The sort of thing that bothers me is calling people names. The
> purpose of saying them seems to be to insult or hurt people rather
> than to convey any information.
*IF* there was a point to 'conveying information', then your objection
might have some substance. But it quite clear - and has been from the
1st day of Muck Tumble's posts, that he has no intent or desire to
accept any information that is conveyed. The only thing left to do is
HOPE to show the other people on this group what he really is. The good
news is that MOST of us have already figured that out....
> "Idiot" and "moron", for example,
> almost never refer to subnormal intelligence which is their literal
> meaning. They are usually just ways to say "I don't like you."
Yeah. So?
I DON'T like him. I honestly believe that if he fell off the face of
the earth, we'd be better off. The lucky news for Muck is that this is
God's call, not mine.
> Exactly! I think that we receive a lot of benefit from seeing
> opposing points of view represented here. We have developed a
> virtual community in which it is possible to disagree with people
> while liking and respecting them.
Don't confuse "opposing point of view" with "moronic trouble maker".
For example, Paul has an "opposoing point of view" (from mine). Susan
has an opposing point of view. Even Brandon has an opposing point of
view (on occation). But I consider them to be the furtherest thing from
"moronic".
Muck, on the other hand, is just a blathering idiot. As such, he should
just be ignored.
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Chris Barnes" <ch...@txbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:bi2vb2$ldc$1...@news.tamu.edu...
> Jayne Kulikauskas <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > I don't have much problem with saying that people are trolls. For me
> > that is a description of behaviour rather than an insult if it really
> > does describe what they are doing.
>
> There isn't much of a difference between "troll" and "moron/idiot".
> Unless you hold trolls in a higher regard than I do. To me, calling
> someone a troll *is* an insult - and a fairly strong one at that.
Psst, Chris, say hi to Sylvia, since this is a thread to welcome her. <g>
I think of troll as a fairly neutral term. Sometimes they are intelligent
and entertaining. It doesn't happen that often anymore, but it used to in
the good old days.
> > The sort of thing that bothers me is calling people names. The
> > purpose of saying them seems to be to insult or hurt people rather
> > than to convey any information.
>
> *IF* there was a point to 'conveying information', then your objection
> might have some substance. But it quite clear - and has been from the
> 1st day of Muck Tumble's posts, that he has no intent or desire to
> accept any information that is conveyed. The only thing left to do is
> HOPE to show the other people on this group what he really is. The good
> news is that MOST of us have already figured that out....
And what are you showing us about yourself by using an expression like "Muck
Tumble"? A clue - it is not your wit and maturity.
> > "Idiot" and "moron", for example,
> > almost never refer to subnormal intelligence which is their literal
> > meaning. They are usually just ways to say "I don't like you."
>
> Yeah. So?
> I DON'T like him. I honestly believe that if he fell off the face of
> the earth, we'd be better off. The lucky news for Muck is that this is
> God's call, not mine.
How do you obey Jesus command to love your enemies?
> > Exactly! I think that we receive a lot of benefit from seeing
> > opposing points of view represented here. We have developed a
> > virtual community in which it is possible to disagree with people
> > while liking and respecting them.
>
> Don't confuse "opposing point of view" with "moronic trouble maker".
> For example, Paul has an "opposoing point of view" (from mine). Susan
> has an opposing point of view. Even Brandon has an opposing point of
> view (on occation). But I consider them to be the furtherest thing from
> "moronic".
>
> Muck, on the other hand, is just a blathering idiot. As such, he should
> just be ignored.
If that is what you think then I wish you had. Mark was apparently looking
for people to confirm his negative feelings about fundamentalists and you
did a great job.
Jayne
Julie Pascal
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:bi2cog$4jm6q$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
It sounds like a great time and I sure wouldn't dismiss the
educational value of it. It's kind of surprising to me just how much
I don't mind having the kids exposed to things with a questionable
element to them. (Which probably describes Monty Python quite
well.) There is no threat, I think, the way that there would be if
I didn't know at all what they were watching-reading-being taught.
When it comes right down to it I would far rather they knew
all the bad stuff that was out there in the world (beyond slightly
naughty and deliberately shocking humor even) and I'd rather they
learned about it in a situation where they were not having to deal
with it in isolation.
Which musings always remind me of a public service TV spot
about violence in schools. I'd guess that the kids they had in
the spot were about 10 year olds. The whole idea of the spot
was to emphasize just how much pressure kids were under
dealing with serious issues at school *alone*... it was a real
emotion jerker. And then Pres. Clinton got on and said
something about talking to your kids about violence. It was
mind boggling. Obviously *everyone* knows that young
children have to deal with things they aren't emotionally mature
enough to deal with in school...this isn't just homeschoolers talking
but the Pres, the NEA, everyone. Only suggest that children
should be protected from those sorts of things they aren't mature
and ready to deal with and what happens? Suddenly this
situation that everyone (yes everyone) agrees is hard or even
potentially harmful to children is an important part of their growth.
Go figure.
--Julie
Chris Barnes
> Psst, Chris, say hi to Sylvia, since this is a thread to welcome her.
> <g>
Oh, my bad.
Hi Sylvia. I see you're from Wyoming, right. When I retire in 12-15
years, I hope to play "snow bunny" with a place up there. I've been
there once, and absolutely loved it.
> And what are you showing us about yourself by using an expression
> like "Muck Tumble"? A clue - it is not your wit and maturity.
Actually, it's exactly that. *vbg*
Not unlike President Bush (sr) intentionally mis-pronoucing "Sa-damn
Hussein" during the 1st Gulf War.
> How do you obey Jesus command to love your enemies?
By ignoring him.
> If that is what you think then I wish you had. Mark was apparently
> looking for people to confirm his negative feelings about
> fundamentalists and you did a great job.
My response to him made not a wit of difference what he thinks.
Nor, for that matter, did yours (or anyone else's).
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
[]
> > And what are you showing us about yourself by using an expression
> > like "Muck Tumble"? A clue - it is not your wit and maturity.
>
> Actually, it's exactly that. *vbg*
> Not unlike President Bush (sr) intentionally mis-pronoucing "Sa-damn
> Hussein" during the 1st Gulf War.
For future reference, this is not a convincing argument to use on most
Canadians.
> > How do you obey Jesus command to love your enemies?
>
> By ignoring him.
You really shouldn't ignore Jesus.
Oh, alright, I know what you meant. <g> But Scripture does not say that we
love people by ignoring them. Scripture says "Love is patient, love is
kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude,
it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of
wrongs." (ICor 13:4,5)
> > If that is what you think then I wish you had. Mark was apparently
> > looking for people to confirm his negative feelings about
> > fundamentalists and you did a great job.
>
>
> My response to him made not a wit of difference what he thinks.
> Nor, for that matter, did yours (or anyone else's).
Does Mark respond the same way to my posts as he does to yours? I don't
think so. Does he attempt to justify his generalizations about
homeschoolers by saying "I met Jayne first and thought they were all like
her"? No.
If you insist on treating newsgroups like a battleground, I wish you would
do it properly. Use some strategy. Never do what the opponent expects or
wants. You have been playing into Mark's hands from the moment he got here.
If you can not understand how this sort of thing works, then you should
leave it to those who do.
Jayne
Chris Barnes
>> Actually, it's exactly that. *vbg*
>> Not unlike President Bush (sr) intentionally mis-pronoucing "Sa-damn
>> Hussein" during the 1st Gulf War.
>
> For future reference, this is not a convincing argument to use on most
> Canadians.
Well, humor is in the elbow of those with a funny bone.
:-)
>>> How do you obey Jesus command to love your enemies?
>>
>> By ignoring him.
>
> You really shouldn't ignore Jesus.
> Oh, alright, I know what you meant. <g>
See, that was funny. ;-)
> Does Mark respond the same way to my posts as he does to yours? I
> don't think so.
From what I could tell (before I ploinked him) was that he responded to
everyone the same. Me. Dalene. You. Paul. Brandon.
Didn't matter.
> You have been playing into Mark's hands from the
> moment he got here. If you can not understand how this sort of thing
> works, then you should leave it to those who do.
Really? That's odd. I made 1 (one) reply to him. Everything else in
the threads have been *about* him, but *to* others. What he does
anymore - or doesn't do - is irrelevant.
Julie Pascal
> > My response to him made not a wit of difference what he thinks.
> > Nor, for that matter, did yours (or anyone else's).
True. (Though I'm not saying that name calling is acceptable.)
> Does Mark respond the same way to my posts as he does to yours? I don't
> think so. Does he attempt to justify his generalizations about
> homeschoolers by saying "I met Jayne first and thought they were all like
> her"? No.
No, but he's just as patronizing with you as with anyone
else. Actually, I was thinking, earlier, that this whole "event"
would make a nice University research project for someone.
The students could practice correlating and comparing data...
counting the insults and innuendoes and making cute little bar
graphs and pie charts on who did how much of what when.
> If you insist on treating newsgroups like a battleground, I wish you
would
> do it properly. Use some strategy. Never do what the opponent expects or
> wants. You have been playing into Mark's hands from the moment he got
here.
> If you can not understand how this sort of thing works, then you should
> leave it to those who do.
Ignoring him would be best. Unfortunately he's likely to hang around
to pounce on anyone who might wander in and post to the group, either
to berate them for lack of critical reflection (on the basis of as little as
one post) or to gleefully praise them for performing to his satisfaction as
if he was someone we needed to please.
That last bit gets my goat as much as the first bit. The diminuation is
insulting even when it's sugar coated, like some chauvinist complimenting
a "little lady" on her brains. "My, aren't you just the brightest little
thing!"
Pooie.
--Julie
Mark and Bev Tindall
> >> >Now ...are there any more barbs that people want to throw at me????
> >> If you dish, ya gotta expect to take.
> >Ditto! ;-)
> >> >Is your Inquisition finished or still continuing????
................
> >> >Any questions????
> >> You didn't expect an Inquisition, did you?
> >
> >Yes. When people are SO desperate that they have to do a Goodgle check
on
>
> Oh, we've got to spend our time doing something while waiting for any
> substantial answers from you!
THEN you continue with the Inquistion????
> Great minds discuss ideas;
> Average minds discuss events;
> Small minds discuss people.
A misquote.
MaG Douglas
news:bi39fb$4re5p$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> think so.
Well, let's look at how he treats Jayne. Of the 25 replies to Jayne (or Vic,
since their one): 12 have been directly derogatory or simply ignored what
had been written to post a cut and paste reply; 9 have been civil to Jayne,
but insulting to either homeschoolers in general or one specifically; and 4
have been civil with no comments towards others. So, slightly over 50% were
civil to Jayne. I don't know, Jayne... I wouldn't like 50/50 odds on whether
I'd be treated decently if I had been acting as you have.
> Does he attempt to justify his generalizations about
> homeschoolers by saying "I met Jayne first and thought they were all like
> her"? No.
You're right he doesn't. But he did meet you and several others from this
group first, but he latched onto Chris's response because that supported his
prejudices.
MaG