*******************************************************************************************************************
TRUTH:
"Have No Fellowship With the Unfruitful Works of Darkness, But Rather EXPOSE Them!" ~ GOD, Ephesians 5:11

Got PROOF? The police in Colorado know about serial child killers! Go to www.PoliceRecordingsKekoas.com for the TRUTH!

August 26, 2006

Jo & Danielle: Home Schooling vs. Public Schooling

BOB ENYART LIVE - Listen online
Fri. 8-25-06 #170 or better at 56kbps
Or go to KGOV.com

Summary: *Jo Scott & Danielle Kekoa discuss the benefits of home schooling your children and the dangers of the government run public schools.

*Recommended articles to read:
- Everything Bad I Learned...
- He Who is Not With Me is Against Me
- "Salt-n-Light" in Public School
- So What About Socialization?
- Back-to-$chool Time = PRICELE$$!

*Recommended books to read:
- To Train Up A Child - Michael & Debi Pearl
- The Harsh Truth About Public Schools - Bruce Shortt

*For more information:
--->>
BUREAUCRATIC DAYCARE <<---
~ Attention Christian Parents ~ It's Time To Get Informed About Public Education!!! Government Schools Destroy Children’s Minds & Corrupts Their Souls! Pull Your Kids Out of the Godless Schools Before it's Too Late!!!

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...
Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children."
- Hosea 4:6

55 comments:

  1. I went to public school and it wasn't at all the way you represent in your posts. Nor was like that to anyone I have ever talked to.

    For all of the bad of public education, it has done right by me, and as such I am grateful for what I learned there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Parallax - 2 questions for you:

    1. Do you live in America?

    2. Do you believe in God?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Yes

    2. I am a Taoist, so the answer is perhaps.

    The problem as I see it with bringing god into schools is that you would have to allow any other faith the same amount of time, satanism, taoism, islam, all would have to have a share by law. Otherwise it would be discrimination.

    The State is not atheist, it is agnostic.

    And I was meaning that I never witnessed the amount of sex and "alternative" lifestyles as you wrote about. We had no real sex ed, only a couple small fights a year and the occasional weed bust. And of the problems only the kids in the less than bright classes tended to be involved.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Phallax:
    "2. I am a Taoist, so the answer is perhaps.?

    That's a bummer, dude doesn't even know if he believes in the existance of God...nice worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, Taoism takes nothing for granted. The universe is beyond my ability to truly understand, therefore things that I do not know through personal experience will always be answered 'perhaps'

    If you have any questions about Taoism let me know, but if you want to just be rude please don't bother to post about my ideology. I have never been rude to anyone about their beliefs and I would appreciate the same level of basic respect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're in the wrong place parallax, if you want kindness and respect of your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So my question is, what about all the people, Im pretty sure about more than half the people in the world cant afford to 'home school' Let alone stay home with their kids. Its the way the world is going, we now need two incomes just to get by. Are you saying that they don't deserve to have children? Boy you diss everyone for everything. You are a very sad person. There are alot of kids that go through public school, daycare, single parent families, and come out perfectly fine

    ReplyDelete
  8. Parallax -
    The problem as I see it with bringing god into schools is that you would have to allow any other faith the same amount of time, satanism, taoism, islam, all would have to have a share by law. Otherwise it would be discrimination.

    By no means do I think we should bring God into the schools, but the problem I have is that the schools officially claim to be 'neutral' with regard to Christianity while at the same time all other religions are being taught => Pagan Religions Taught In Public Schools.

    So really, the only discrimination going on is against the God of the Bible. The public schools are fine for the heathens who hate God anyway, but it is not a place for Christian kids to learn about life! For Christians, God commands parents to give their children a strictly Christian education and that cannot be accomplished if we send our children to a pagan seminary to be educated.

    Neutrality is impossible with the Lord! Either we are going His direction, or we are not. We either teach our to children love, honor and obey God, or we send them to a place where God is irrelevant. Jesus is clear when He said, “He who is not with Me is against Me.”

    BTW – I would certainly be interested in hearing more about your beliefs as a Taoist.

    -------------------

    Anonymous2 - So my question is, what about all the people, Im pretty sure about more than half the people in the world cant afford to 'home school' Let alone stay home with their kids. Its the way the world is going, we now need two incomes just to get by.

    Yes I realize that most families do need two incomes just to get by, but if parents truly care about their children’s education, they would make a way for it to work. I also have to wonder why they can’t afford it…do they drive brand new SUV’s? Do that live in a nice big fancy house? How many times do they go out to eat each week? Do they have cable television and designer clothes? All those questions need to be answered before I can really believe they can’t afford it.

    But if that truly is the case, the members of the church are commanded take care of those in need. They are to be a husband to the widows and a father to the fatherless. Stay-at-home mothers, like myself can offer services to those in need. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

    ------------------

    Phronk Hey, here's an idea: Instill your kids with a sense of right and wrong (by both instruction and example), so that when they are exposed to the big bad evil school system, they know how to deal with it.

    How can that be achieved if my kids are away from me for 8 hours a day five days a week being indoctrinated with evil? Small children are not fully equipped to sustain their faith in an environment that is not only hostile to their faith but violent and dangerous to their safety.

    I agree that there is a lot of bad in public schools (though you exaggerate it a whole lot...unless the U.S. is somehow ten times worse than Canada in this regard).

    I don’t know much about the schools in Canada, but I can assure you that the schools here in the U.S. are ten times worse.

    Here are a couple dozen articles you can read to prove my point =>

    The "Trained Professionals" at Their Best

    In the news at a local public school near you...

    ReplyDelete
  9. As if encouraging Dani to think about the upsides of public schooling would have any effect.

    If I'm not mistaken, studies regarding home schooling and public schooling generally come up with stories of success and failure for both. Generally, laymen criticisms of either side tend to stem from a lack of understanding of the given system in question (big surprise there).

    Here is a breakdown of the conflict, as I see it:

    1. Reasonable Skepticism Stemming From Experiential Bias

    Often, those who attended public school find the notion of staying home and learning all about science, math, english, geography and all that from a parent a little odd. The biggest criticisms they might have, if they think about it enough, is that:
    A) They would not have the opportunity to socialize with many of their peers and thus not be exposed to the wealth of ideas available in a diverse community like the kind offered by public schooling; and
    B) They would be taught by someone with little to no formal training in the subjects they dealt with day to day. Since public school teachers (in Canada, at least) are required to have, at the very least, a bachelor's degree in their primary teaching subject, as well as a teaching certificate from a recognized teacher's college, they will be much better equipped to teach the subjects required in their respective curricula. Without these things, the average public school student/graduate will be understandably critical of the quality of education a homeschooled student could receive.
    C) The parent would be prevented from earning a second income (an increasingly neccesary pursuit of late) because of the need to remain home with the child to homeschool them.

    From the point of view of a homeschooled individual (or more likely the homeschooling parent), concern for their children becoming "lost in the system" undoubtedly colours their views on public education. The perceived potential problems inherent in public education, from the point of view of the homeschooling parent, are likely the following:
    A) Class sizes prevent their child from receiving the necessary amount of individual attention. With average class sizes approaching 30 students, it seems unlikely that a single teacher would be able to address the concerns and difficulties of every student, allowing for some to fall behind.
    B) There is little control over the students and adults that the child chooses to associate with while at school. Poor choices of social circles might lead to a child getting involved in drinking, smoking, or drugs at an early age, as well as experiencing their first sexual acts earlier than if they were homeschooled.
    C) The parents and children would spend considerably less time together if the children were enrolled in public school, potentially affecting the parent-child bond in a negative manner.

    There are responses to these criticisms, as well, like the fact that many U.S. public schools are required to allow homeschoolers to take part in extra-curricular activities to encourage a broader social base, and that teaching one's children good decision-making skills tends to prevent falling in with unsavoury crowds, as well as giving them the tools to abstain or at least responsibly partake in some of the "lesser" of the evils. However, the arguments being made here don't tend to have much to do with these criticisms. If they did, I'd have more respect for Dani's choice to homeschool her own children. This brings me to my second list:

    2. Unreasonable Skepticism Stemming From Religious/Societal Bias

    This category encompasses some of the major issues that Dani has presented in her condemnation of public education. This category contains reasons founded on a hierarchy of agenda. That is to say, it possesses some founding ideas, which are then "supported" with faulty evidence and speculation.
    A) Public schools are Anti-Christian establishments as evidenced by the removal of prayer from the classroom, the teaching of evolution in science class, and the de-emphasis of Christmas.
    B) Public schools seek to indoctrinate children into atheist ideology because science classrooms ignore competing theories of origins like Creationism and Intelligent Design.
    C) Since atheism is congruous with secular humanism and, therefore, moral decay, public schools also seek to expose children to alcohol, drugs, and sexual abuse.
    D) Since homosexuality is also a form of moral decay, an inevitable consequence of the moral relativism inherent in secular humanism, public schools provide an environment for homosexuals to safely convert innocent heterosexual students to their sexual orientation.
    E) The public school system supports and promotes the "homosexual agenda" and aids in the conversion of its students to the homosexual orientation by preaching "acceptance" of alternative lifestyles.

    Needless to say, every one of these points is fatally flawed, and each of them has been individually contested, refuted, re-refuted and subsequently ignored due to the senseless repetition of obviously incorrect information. Because Dani's agenda is one that seeks to contest the ideas that conflict with her heavily debated world-view, she draws on and combines all of the above arguments (and more, of course) to create a problem with the public education system that simply does not exist. There are perfectly valid reasons to homeschool one's children (as well as perfectly valid reasons to send them to public or private school), but Dani ignores them in her ongoing battle to prove to herself that she is unquestionably right, and goes with the bullshit she picked up from Bob and Curtis last sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  10. P.S. Phronk, if my kids are forced to go to the Public School Prisons they might be brainwashed with idiotic beliefs like that being gay is good.

    This is for you, Uber => TOP 10 STRATEGIES OF IMPLEMENTING HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

    ReplyDelete
  11. While you were out 'sinning' around, having a baby out of wedlock(at an early age), did you get some sort of teaching degree? or is it safe to say that any moron can teach the 3 R's? And keep them up to date with todays curriculum?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Parallax-

    "If you have any questions about Taoism let me know, but if you want to just be rude please don't bother to post about my ideology. I have never been rude to anyone about their beliefs and I would appreciate the same level of basic respect."


    I am wondering according to Taoism why I shouldn't be rude to anybody. Why is rudeness something I should avoid, why is it "bad? What is your basis for knowing right and wrong, where do you get your standard of morality according to Taoism?

    Why should I have any respect for other peoples beliefs at all according to your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dani said "I don’t know much about the schools in Canada, but I can assure you that the schools here in the U.S. are ten times worse."

    I just love the logic here.

    Bob, I would submit that you should avoid being rude to Parallax, or anyone else, simply because it's the right thing to do. You know that, I know that, and neither of us should need the Bible to tell us that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dani,

    Your "Top 10 Strategies" link does not actually answer anything I said so much as display that I was correct in my assessment. I'm well aware of all the arguments presented therein, and am also aware that none of them have any substantiation in fact. Unless you'd care to provide us with a citation from an objective and properly accredited study that says different. Otherwise, it is clear that they are a carefully created series of bogus scare-tactics designed to provide religious right-leaning parents with a pseudo-legitimate reason to saddle their children with an unquestioned and unchallenged set of demonstrable falsehoods masquerading as an education.

    It seems a little curiously vain of you to link to your own blog's use of the "Top 10 Strategies", since it was, in turn, taken from cuttingedge.org. Technically, it would have made more sense to link directly to the source than your own previous use of the source given that you did nothing more with it than quote the text. After all, cuttingedge.org was the "authority" to which you were referring, not yourself. I suspect it is another symptom of your ongoing need to give yourself the illusion of credibility in these arguments, if perhaps only subconsciously.

    Let me stress again that I have no problem with homeschooling as a whole, per se, only with this particular agenda for homeschooling. There are many valid reasons to homeschool one's children, and there are certainly appropriate and effective ways to go about it, but the motivation behind the "Top 10 Strategies of Implementing Homosexual Agenda In Public Schools" cannot count itself among them.

    Bob,

    Why should I have any respect for other peoples beliefs at all according to your worldview?

    I could answer this question myself, but I'll leave it up to Parallax. Instead, I have a different exercise here to test your objective thinking skills:

    Come up with a viable alternative explanation to your own worldview for why you should have respect for other peoples' beliefs according to their worldview. Naturally, you won't believe that it's the truth since it won't represent your own opinions, but the idea is to come up with a system that would make the most sense in the hypothetical event that your worldview were false.

    I'm curious to see what you'll come up with.

    ReplyDelete
  15. P.S. I don’t know much about the schools in Canada, but I can assure you that the schools here in the U.S. are ten times worse.

    I'm going to have to agree with Limpy on this one... it just doesn't make sense. If you "don't know much about the schools in Canada", how can you know anything about how they relate to the U.S. schools?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Limpy - I don’t know much about the schools in Canada from personal experience, only from what people have told me and the schools cannot possibly get much worse than the schools in the U.S.

    Uber - I liked your little analysis about skepticism (reasonable and unreasonable) and I agree with most of it. But the fact remains that I have personal beliefs about giving my children a Christian education, and God's design is for the family to be together not send your kids away for 8 hours a day for others to take care of. Since you don't believe in God it is understandable why you don't approve of my beliefs and I don't feel the need to explain myself to you.

    ----------------------

    Phronk - those links only provide a few DOZEN examples of bad things that happen in public schools THAT week alone. Violence, crime, stabbings, shootings, illicit sex, and drug use are all common place at school starting in jr. high. Teachers accused of rape, sodomy, child porn & molestation flood the media every single day and it's happening at a school in everyone’s neighborhood. Sorry, but regardless of my religion, I love my children too much to send them to a place where they could get seriously hurt, raped or killed. You don't have to be a "Christian" to know that the public school is a bad place for kids to be. In fact, the secular homeschooling movement is really growing as a direct result of how bad the schools are now.

    Here are some studies about homeschooling:

    - Academic Statistics on Homeschooling

    - Socialization: A Great Reason Not to Go to School

    - The Myths of Home Schooling and the Inferiority of State Education

    - Homeschooling and the Myth of Socialization

    - Homeschooling Hall of Fame

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Bob, I would submit that you should avoid being rude to Parallax, or anyone else, simply because it's the right thing to do. You know that, I know that, and neither of us should need the Bible to tell us that."

    Really? I'm asking for a foundation for that belief, I am asking why. I do agree that we do inherently know this to be wrong but that is because God (according to the bible) has put His law into our hearts. Without that biblical foundation the question remains why should I behave morally, and is there such a thing as morality to begin with?

    You too need to give a foundation for this Limpy. Should I not be rude because you say so or I have some "feeling" that I shouldn't? What is your foundation for why I should be moral Limpy? How do you know what right and wrong even are for that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  18. But the fact remains that I have personal beliefs about giving my children a Christian education, and God's design is for the family to be together not send your kids away for 8 hours a day for others to take care of. Since you don't believe in God it is understandable why you don't approve of my beliefs and I don't feel the need to explain myself to you.

    Ironically, Dani, I am A-OK with this particular reason for homeschooling your children. If your personal beliefs say you should keep your family as close as possible to the point where homeschooling is the best option, I support your decision completely. Where I have trouble is when the issue becomes something other than a personal choice founded on personal beliefs, namely a call for a societal imposition of one's personal beliefs. That is where my criticism of the alleged "homosexual agenda" and all the various and false characterizations of public education comes in. As I stated, and as I think you mostly agreed with, both public education and homeschooling have pros and cons. Creating problems, or blowing existing problems out of proportion so that they seem like epidemics rather than important, but manageable issues, does not help to solve them. Ideally, for those that choose public schooling, they should be able to get the best possible education available. You've made your choice, as it appears to me, based on reasons other than the ones you've been trying to provide anyone reading your blog. And they seem like pretty good reasons. Why spread opinions, that are at best unsupported and at worst disproven and needlessly inflammatory, when the simplest answer will do for those that want it? Such tirades strike me more as the work of an anti-homosexual agenda than anything else, and I think we have enough agenda going around for everyone these days.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dani-

    The reason the Christianity isn't taught in a religious studies class is because it is already assumed that most if not all of the students have a basic knowledge of Christianity, and also because there are so many differing Christian sub-groups that would be active in any class as to finding a middle ground for teaching of the topic would be close to impossible.

    But I do understand your point. It is one of the reasons that I am all for people having home-school as an option that shouldn't be discriminated against.

    Bob-

    "I am wondering according to Taoism why I shouldn't be rude to anybody. Why is rudeness something I should avoid, why is it 'bad?' What is your basis for knowing right and wrong, where do you get your standard of morality according to Taoism?"

    Taoism, at the end of the day, is all about balance and karma. Everything in the universe is cause and effect and seeks to be in balance. The reason one should not be rude is because they themselves do not wish to be treated in a rude manner. It is the same reason one should not steal, or be adulterous, or kill people. Everything one does reflects back on to ones self.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "how can that be achieved if my kids are away from me for 8 hours a day five days a week being indoctrinated with evil? Small children are not fully equipped to sustain their faith in an environment that is not only hostile to their faith but violent and dangerous to their safety."

    And yet somehow, after 6 years in a state school and another 5 in a private school, being "indoctrinated with evil", I have managed ot learn right from wrong, and so have the vast majority of people.

    Your argument just doesn't add up, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Uber - I'm glad you support my decision completely. Other than my personal beliefs about homeschooling, the "homosexual agenda" at the PS is really only a side issue. Even if there were no “agenda” and the schools were safe and fine academically - we would still homeschool our kids.

    CJ - With all due respect, you live in the UK and you do not believe in God. While I'm sure the violence, sex, drugs and crime are not nearly as bad as in the U.S. - you have been indoctrinated with humanism, and as a result you don't believe in the Creator of the Universe. That right there IS evidence of the public school system working - and it's absolutely tragic!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "CJ - With all due respect, you live in the UK and you do not believe in God."

    No, I do not believe in YOUR God.

    "you have been indoctrinated with humanism"

    by my parents. None of the three schools I have attended has ever tried to teach me to be any religion whatsoever, as is my freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Parralax-
    "Everything in the universe is cause and effect and seeks to be in balance.The reason one should not be rude is because they themselves do not wish to be treated in a rude manner."

    Well, maybe I am here to help keep the balance of yin and yang...I am here to be a jerk because there are too many "nice guys" and there needs to be a "balance as you assert (how you know this transcendental truth and don't know whether God exists is beyond me). Also you kinda reiterarte the "do unto others" ethic...well that in and of itself is not a moral standard, the question remeains why should I accept the "do unto others standard". I think I'll make up my own standard "Seek first my happiness and self exaltation".

    You see to announce the "do unto others ethic" is to borrow from my Christian worldview. That ethic only has authority because of who said it, Christ who claimed to be God incarnate thus, on that basis what He said is authoratative.

    And as far as "karma" being the standard you have a problem because who/what is enforcing the karma consequences? Where did the laws of karma come from? Why should I accept this standard of karma as my own rather than my own made up standard of "Seek first my happiness and self exaltation"? So all you have done is push the questions back one step.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bob-

    Yin and Yang do not work the way you think they do. The whole point is to find individual balance and peace, you are not rude because someone elsewhere is nice; you are rude because of your own will. If you wish to remain so then that is your prerogative, but the world will go out of its way to reflect it back to you.

    The "do unto others ethic" is common in almost every single philosophy on the globe. I would also point out that Taoism didn't take the ethic from christianity since Taoism has existed for a few thousand years before the jewish tribes came together. I think the issue you have is the fact that there is no single force that dictates what is right and what is wrong, it IS up to the individual to find their center in the world.

    As I have said before, Taoism doesn't stop you from "seeking first my happiness and self exaltation" but mentions that by doing so you will fell empty and will be apt to have negative things brought unto you.

    The force that moves karma is the Tao. It exists in all things and in all ways, but is as powerful as it is neutral and uncaring. It is not a deity, nor a spirit.

    And again, I can believe in karma and Tao and still question the origin of the world. I refuse to claim that I am so wise as to know more than what my eyes can see. I am open to new truths but so far none have been presented to me that would make me go firmly to either camp of the god debate.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Parallax-

    Interesting discussion, here again is where I think we run into problems:

    "The force that moves karma is the Tao. It exists in all things and in all ways, but is as powerful as it is neutral and uncaring. It is not a deity, nor a spirit.

    And again, I can believe in karma and Tao and still question the origin of the world. I refuse to claim that I am so wise as to know more than what my eyes can see."


    It seems like this "Tao" is the support for you view of karma and thus your idea of ethics (It still raises the question of which actions will give good karma and how that standard of good and bad actions) but it seems that this "Tao" is the support for it. Here is where your worldview is irrational you state:

    "The force that moves karma is the Tao."

    And in almost the same breath say:

    "I refuse to claim that I am so wise as to know more than what my eyes can see."

    That's odd can we see the "Tao"? Can we measure the "Tao"? Can we weigh the "Tao"? Is there any concievable test to empirically verify the existance of the "Tao"? What is this "Tao" it is not God you say yet it pervades everything...where did the "Tao" come from? Why does it exist? Where did the "Tao" get its properties from?

    I am trying to get at the root of the original questions how do you know what right and wrong are and why should I live a moral life. Thus far you have said 1)Good karma, to which I asked what governs karma? You answered 2)the "Tao". To which I have the same questions and more:
    a)Where did the "Tao" come from?
    b)Where did the "Tao" get its moral standard from?
    c)What is the "Tao"?
    d)How can the impersonal universe with no mind behind it cause the existance of a moral code for its creatures to abide by (or a "Tao"/karma)?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Good questions Bob. This shall be interesting to see the answers from Parallax.

    CJ said - "No, I do not believe in YOUR God."

    If you don't believe in MY God, the Creator of the Universe, what "god" do you believe in?

    So you have been indoctrinated with humanism by your own parents - HOW VERY SAD!

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The tao that can be described
    is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be spoken
    is not the eternal Name."

    Where it comes from is an unanswerable question. The Tao te ching has nothing to say about the origins of the world or predictions for its destruction. These questions are beyond the scope of the Tao which is to master oneself in this world, what transpires elsewhere is on no concern.

    a)Where did the "Tao" come from?
    It didn't come from anywhere, it simply is. As stated above the beginnings of creation are not of importance to ones personal quest for enlightenment.

    b)Where did the "Tao" get its moral standard from?
    From the world, the standard is the natural one that can been seen in almost any culture and religion. The Tao has no moral standard in and of its self; it just acts as a means for one to find their own standard and balance in life. This does me that there are no moral absolutes in Taoism. But it also means Taoist are for less apt to fight because of a mutual respect for others thoughts and ways of life.

    c)What is the "Tao"?
    One cannot explain the Tao. One can describe the Tao but never say what it is in terms other than metaphors because it is a force beyond our mortal understanding, only a Master is truly at one with the Tao.

    d)How can the impersonal universe with no mind behind it cause the existance of a moral code for its creatures to abide by (or a "Tao"/karma)?
    Not sure, which is why I am in the middle on the God debate. The moral codes come from natural law but there is so much complexity that it is hard to imagine that anything short of a deity could form it.

    The important thing that I think you are missing is the fact that the Tao does not dictate right and wrong, it has no feelings, or worries. The Tao simply is and those who try to balance themselves experience the push and pull of the Tao within their own search. You asked if it can be seen or measured, the answer is that it can be but only in the same way one can measure contentment or peace; metrics are the issue, the Tao is something you feel.

    Taoists consider morality, government, culture, all to be fluid. They ebb and flow and change over time, the Master must seek to be open to such changes but not to hold them any more than any other changes that come. The goal is to be open to the world and live in a manner that one can feel that their reflection is that of the perfect version of themselves.

    I know it is very different, and technically is not completely a religion because it lacks origin story, ending story, absolute laws, deities, or rituals. But it is a philosophy that goes beyond basic good and evil. Good questions, and I am happy to answer any more you have.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dani,

    Other than my personal beliefs about homeschooling, the "homosexual agenda" at the PS is really only a side issue. Even if there were no “agenda” and the schools were safe and fine academically - we would still homeschool our kids.

    I find this curious, since you spend little to no time discussing the pros and cons that I listed in my summary of both sides of the home/public school debate. If these reasons are the greater reasons for homeschooling your children, as I believe you indicated, why spend a grossly disproportionate amount of time railing against the lesser of the perceived problems? Indeed, while the "homosexual agenda" is purely a matter derived from opinion based on your own desire for fundamentalist Protestant Christian teachings, the issues I listed are very real problems, well documented and generally agreed upon among most educators. Yet, you spend the majority of your time addressing your pet peeves regarding public schools, rather than attempting to make changes to the universal problems that public school children face, regardless of religious background.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dani,

    I don't believe in a God that's written down in any book. I believe that there is a God, as it's the only explanation that satisfies me as to why the universe exists. Beyond that, I don't know. There's a quote, something about "I don't know how to please you, Lord, but I think the fact that I want to please you pleases you".

    "So you have been indoctrinated with humanism by your own parents - HOW VERY SAD!"

    I'd say the same thing about your indoctrination of your children, but it's actually none of my business.

    Oh, and it's not just humanism, is Liberalism, Tolerance and all things repugnant to yourself. I am a Liberal Nationalist.

    There is one more thing I have to say on the subject of education, which is that I have been very fortunate in being taught to think. Not enough people teach this, but it's the most important thing. It's why we have freedom of speech. If there was one thing that i think every school should teach, it's the ability to think, to question absolutely everything, no matter who tells you, "The unexamined life is not worth living by mankind" to quote Socrates. Do you teach this to your children, Dani, or are you just creating automatons?

    ReplyDelete
  30. you know, home schooling is a great idea and everything, but the fact is that american parents are either too stupid or just dont care enough to do that. my wife is a teacher, and she has to call parents all of the time who just shrug her off, dont care that their kid is either a moron or a nutcase, and just let the kids grow up to deliver the pizza i order on poker night.

    she teaches 6th grade mathematics, and has asked parents to help their kids with their homework, and some of the parents say that they dont know how to help.

    parents just dont care. they dont care enough to pay for their kids schooling, and they dont care enough to help with it. for someone who knows from a first hand experience, i think home schooling is great, but parents just dont care.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You are absolutely right Jas! Most parents are too stupid and lazy to give a rip about their own kids.

    Let me ask you this - Once you and your wife have children, would you ever send them to public school?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ubershen:

    Sorry I didn't respond to your question to me I just now noticed it as I was perusing Parallax's previous responses to see how he is contradicting himself. You asked:

    "Come up with a viable alternative explanation to your own worldview for why you should have respect for other peoples' beliefs according to their worldview. Naturally, you won't believe that it's the truth since it won't represent your own opinions, but the idea is to come up with a system that would make the most sense in the hypothetical event that your worldview were false.

    I'm curious to see what you'll come up with."


    Well, you're asking me to do something that I think really can't be done. I don't think any objective universal moral standard can be reached when we start with a particular (autonomous man). To arrive at a universal we need something that can provide an objective universally binding truth, I hold that God alone as revealed in the bible can give us such a standard.

    Parallax:

    I am genuinely enjoying our exchange and thank you for graciously taking time to answering my questions. However, I think your statements in response to my questions are filled with contradictions for example you state:

    "a)Where did the "Tao" come from?
    It didn't come from anywhere, it simply is. As stated above the beginnings of creation are not of importance to ones personal quest for enlightenment...It didn't come from anywhere, it simply is. As stated above the beginnings of creation are not of importance to ones personal quest for enlightenment."


    Yet you later state:

    "One cannot explain the Tao. One can describe the Tao but never say what it is in terms other than metaphors because it is a force beyond our mortal understanding, only a Master is truly at one with the Tao."

    It is a logical contradiction to say things like the "Tao" simply is, and then to say that you can not explain the Tao apart from metaphor. Another problem is when you state:

    "The important thing that I think you are missing is the fact that the Tao does not dictate right and wrong, it has no feelings, or worries."

    Yet in an earlier post you appealed to the Tao as the dictator of Karma saying:

    "The force that moves karma is the Tao."

    You don't want to say that the Tao is the dictator of right and wrong or that the Tao itself posseses moral qualities (obviously to avoid personhood of the Tao). Yet you earlier wanted to say that the Tao was what drove karma. This impersonal force seems to have some sort of knowledge if it knows who needs to get rewarded and who needs to get screwed based upon their moral actions. The Tao would have to in some impersonal way know right and wrong and reward justly the commiters of both right and wrong for their actions. Yet this is a reduction to absurdity...

    We have an impersonal force having no origin, no mind or moral standards dictating (punishing/rewarding) personal moral beings based upon their actions, and based upon their moral standard.

    As for where moral standards come from the answer has shifted again, you said in your latest response:

    "b)Where did the "Tao" get its moral standard from?
    From the world, the standard is the natural one that can been seen in almost any culture and religion."


    This can not be anything but a reduction to relativity, because in fact not all cultures share the same values. In fact there are some New Zealand tribes recently reached by Christian missionaries who think betrayal is a good quality. So upon hearing the gospel story they thought Judas was the hero. Now according to your worldview the Tao would logically bless them because that is their standard that is really all they know.

    Along the same lines you state:

    "Taoists consider morality, government, culture, all to be fluid. They ebb and flow and change over time, the Master must seek to be open to such changes but not to hold them any more than any other changes that come. The goal is to be open to the world and live in a manner that one can feel that their reflection is that of the perfect version of themselves.

    I just don't know how this can be seen as anything but pragmatic moral relativism. To restate my original complain what if I "feel" (as you said) that being a jerk is the way to go, this is how I feel, and really don't see any reason why this "feeling" is wrong. Yet you want to say that I will get screwed by this Tao and it will cause misfortune on my behalf.

    This also raises problems on the broader cultural scale. What if (not too hypothetical anymore) a culture said that man/boy love was ok, and the people really "felt" that it was ok. Would you have any right or foundation upon which to stand and say "No this is not right!" or do you need to "Be open to the ebb and flow" of cultures values and just accept that men should have the right to sleep with 6 year old children?

    To press this further, how about in 1900 a culture "feels" that having sex with animals is wrong and they refrain from it...does the Tao bless this behaviour? And lets say in the year 2012 the same culture has changed its views and "feels" that having sex with animals is ok...does the Tao bless this behaviour?

    These are real problems. And I think you need to explain how basing your morality upon the cultural consensus is not a reduction to moral relativism.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dani, most of the time I simply read your site and shake my head at the futility of the arguments that go on here, but every once in a while I feel some weird compulsion to comment. Never to debate, but simply to comment.

    It seems that you tend to make blanket statements about others without taking the time to consider that perhaps, what is right for you, isn't right for every body even when/if they have the same goals as you.

    I am the mother of three. I have been a stay at home mom for almost 17 years. I did not, nor would I now, home school my children. It would not have been in their best interest. I am a high school drop out, I am not known for my patience, and never felt I would do justice to my children as their sole teacher.

    I have never left it to the public school system to "raise" my children. Not to teach them right from wrong, or about drugs, sex, etc. We have always talked about anything and everything. It has been quite challenging at times and on many an occasion I have wanted to pull them out of public school and home school them. Not because I thought I could educate them better at home, but becuase I was FEARFUL of MY ability to teach them right from wrong if I had to compete with the rest of the world.
    Ultimately, when it came down to it, I knew for a fact that I didn't know how to do advanced calculus, but I DID know how to love and parent my children. So in public school they stayed.

    I have been active in their lives every single day and probably want many of the exact same things for my children that you want for yours. I simply have chosen a different, not better or worse, just different, way to try and accomplish that. Any choices that I made about their education was done BECAUSE I love them, not because I was too lazy or didn't care.

    My oldest child was a National Merit Scholar. He scored a 34 on his ACT. He went to college on a full four year scholarship. He has a degree.

    My middle child was offered more than one scholarship after graduating high school. Scored a 33 on his ACT, owned his own home at the age of 18 and is a gifted musician.

    My youngest child is currently a senior in high school, is adored by her teachers, is a beautiful vocalist, has plans to go to college, wants to be a teacher and hopes to bring her ACT scores up from the 25 it's currently at. (bless her heart, she has a really hard time with testing)

    All three were virgins until after high school. (I'm taking a leap of faith here and including my daughter even though she does actually have to finish this year of high school). This may still hold true, but my boys no longer live at home, and are 21 and 24, so it's really their business at this point. They are adults. Whom I love.

    They didn't/don't do drugs. My oldest son has been battling alcoholism that started in COLLEGE. (which just goes to show you that you can't protect them forever)But he is sober and doing well, which means he DOES know right from wrong, even though he stumbled.

    We are NOT affluent. They DID go to some rough schools. There were many things that they encountered and had to deal with that I'm sure NO ONE wants their children to have to go through. I still feel that given the overall picture of OUR lives, public schools were the best choice for MY children. I have the utmost respect for people that are able (mentally, emotionally and financially)to home school their children. I have several friends that home school. We respect eachother and they have NEVER made me feel like they think I don't love my kids because I don't do it. We've talked about it, they know me, they like my kids and they understand the reasons why I have chosen not to.

    The thing that I find the saddest about what goes on here (your site)is that on many levels I don't disagree with what you are trying to accomplish, it is usually your approach that is so off-putting. Why do you feel the need to ostracize and criticize anyone that doesn't do it EXACTLY the way you do? Sometimes there IS more than one path to the same location. For you to say that my children aren't loved as much as yours are because I didn't home school them is pretty presumptuous on your part. Surely you can see that? Or perhaps not, but either way, this was one of the times I needed to speak up.

    Please forgive the grammar and lack of proof reading...it's late and I'm going to bed.

    Take care and God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "It is a logical contradiction to say things like the "Tao" simply is, and then to say that you can not explain the Tao apart from metaphor."

    Actually it isn't, as the lines I posted from the Tao te ching explain, what I describe is not what the Tao is. It is like explaining to someone what the color red is, for all the words they put forward the meaning will never truly get through until that person experiences it for them self.

    "You don't want to say that the Tao is the dictator of right and wrong or that the Tao itself posseses moral qualities (obviously to avoid personhood of the Tao). Yet you earlier wanted to say that the Tao was what drove karma. This impersonal force seems to have some sort of knowledge if it knows who needs to get rewarded and who needs to get screwed based upon their moral actions. The Tao would have to in some impersonal way know right and wrong and reward justly the commiters of both right and wrong for their actions. Yet this is a reduction to absurdity..."

    See I still think you are stuck on punishment and reward. Karma is not about right and wrong. What it is is a reflection of personal deeds. It has no agenda or code, it simply reflects unto you what you give to the world.

    As far as the moral relativism goes, you are correct in that there is no base line, so you are correct Taoists by and large are pragmatic and relative to the outside culture because other peoples lives are there own buisness. The truth is that if you were raised in one of those places you put forward, then there is about a 98% chance that you would agree with the practice because it is a cultural norm. You keep saying "bless" but Taoists don't bless they do not view them selves as being better than others. If the culture they are in has lost its center the Taoist simply leaves knowing that soon the decadence will be countered by outside aggression.

    The goal of Taoism is to live as one feels the perfect version of themselves would live. And to seek enlightenment through acceptance of the world and understanding of their own place within it.

    What you have stated are not contradictions so much as my inability to truly make clear my thoughts on the topic. But even with that said they are no as paradoxical as you claim, it is just because you have a back-ground in Christianity that makes some of the aspects of the Tao a bit odd.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh and I forgot to address the "feel," if you feel like being a jerk you are more than welcome but that personal action will be reflected back to you in the form of people no longer having conversations with you or treating you in the same manner you treat them. If this is the life you wish to lead it is not my place to force you to do otherwise, all I can do is mention it and hope for the best.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well said Lisa, I too come on here just to read, I try not to comment often. But alot of times I do end up shaking my head. "what is right for you, isn't right for every body even when/if they have the same goals as you." That statement alone is so true. You can bring up a child, teach them right from wrong, but in the end they will become their own person.

    I'm blessed, my girls are healthy and made it through school (one an honor student the other above average) ...and are on to university and college. I won't lie, one of them gave me a run when she went through a 'rebellious' stage, (like you Dani and me and pretty much most people) but she made it and its all good. Neither of them are or have been sexually active.

    Everyone, absolutely everyone has some sort of skeleton or demon in their closet that THEY have to deal with. No one is perfect.

    We all have to do what we can to raise our children, especially in todays society. Pray and hope that we've done the best we can. Because really, in the end, He will know whats in our heart.

    You said this to Anonymous: "Yes I realize that most families do need two incomes just to get by, but if parents truly care about their children’s education, they would make a way for it to work. I also have to wonder why they can’t afford it…do they drive brand new SUV’s? Do that live in a nice big fancy house? How many times do they go out to eat each week? Do they have cable television and designer clothes? All those questions need to be answered before I can really believe they can’t afford it."

    We never had a fancy car, or even owned a house....most our clothes were bought at sales or the kids had hand me downs. Eat out every week? We were lucky if we went out 3 times a year. There are alot of circumstances beyond peoples control. I met my husband at the office (totally different departments) The company downsized, we got pay cuts, and then eventually I got laid off. At one time I even had one full time and one part time job. But we kept plugging away, living paycheck to paycheck. Life deals us cards, we deal with it the best we can.

    I was lucky I have my parents to help if I really need it. So in the end we make do. They are great kids. I've absolutely no complaints about the schools they went to. Any sex ed classes they had, they had parental consent forms and also meetings before hand to discuss any questions.

    Thats pretty much it, I'm not here to change your mind. Just to agree with Lisa, it comes down to whatever works. We're all just doing the best we can.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hey Dani,

    Traditional conservative Christian families in California have been betrayed by RINO Arnold!

    Read and weep for the children and grandchildren living in CA: Outright, Blatant Assault on Religious Freedom!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Parallax-

    Thanks for the interchange I think our discussion has reached its climax now and things are clearer. You now openly admit that your moral system is relative and thus really just arbitrary stipulations...in essence moral relativism is just makeup applied to a-morality. You stated:

    "As far as the moral relativism goes, you are correct in that there is no base line, so you are correct Taoists by and large are pragmatic and relative to the outside culture because other peoples lives are there own buisness."

    Thus, we have come full circle and I assert my original challange that you have no right to tell me that it is wrong for me to be rude. You might feel that it is wrong but perhaps I don't and you have no right to tell me that rudeness is wrong because you have no objective universal standard for morality, and you admit it now. You see when you assert that morality is a sort of to each his own sort of thing when you make statements it undercuts your assertions like this:

    "The goal of Taoism is to live as one feels the perfect version of themselves would live."

    I say it undercuts it because what I "feel" to be the "perfect vision of myself" may be radically different from you vision of yourself...we are both pursuing the same goal yet have different "feelings" and you have no right to correct my moral behaviour based upon your prssupositions for a moral foundation. All you leave me with tis the threat that people won't like me and will treat me like crap because I am a jerk as you say:

    "Oh and I forgot to address the "feel," if you feel like being a jerk you are more than welcome but that personal action will be reflected back to you in the form of people no longer having conversations with you or treating you in the same manner you treat them."

    Is this the only motive to live a moral life? So people will like me? So people will talk to me? Sounds kinda self absorbed...its morality based upon benifiting myself...but this is all we are left with when we abandon God and His standard of morality.

    I as a Christian have an answer for how morality can be universal and absolute, morality reflects that character of God who created the universe, thus the creatures in the universe are bound by His moral standards. He reveals His character to us in the bible and ultimatly in the person of Jesus Christ. God is perfect and changes not so though man may run after different idols moral systems and empty philosophies God's standards do not change. Now you might not like my answer but at least I have an answer. To reduce morality to a to each his own system simply is not an adequate answer no civilization can live that way. But this is what we are reduced to when we reject God and choose to be autonomous and create our own moral systems and even gods. As God states in His word:

    "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools," (Rom 1:18-22)

    ReplyDelete
  39. But the issue is that relativism as you like to call it is not acutely individually based but is more of a cultural phenomenon. So while, yes, you may want to be rude it would be counter to the culture and that would cause issue. And again I say that there is no "wrong" in being rude but that the action will be reflected back at you.

    You are correct that I cannot force or demand that you change your behavior so long as it is not detrimental to the freedom of others. The reason to live a moral life is because that life will be more fulfilling.

    You are incorrect about no civilization existing with this sort of system of morality. The Ancient chinese were Taoist for a long period of time and held a strong civilization that lasted over a thousand years until western intervention.

    Your system is fine so long as it is your system. No good comes from forcing will on to others, even if it is with the best of intentions.

    I am sure that you hold that you have refuted my position. That is fine, the goal for me was not to try to convince you of my correctness but to show that there are viable systems of thought that are still open to other options an creation, and morality in general.

    The only question I would have for you about you universal right and wrong is, why has morality been perpetually changing, even in Christian societies? All of them had people who have said the exact same thing as you, there was the white mans burden, and the divine right of kings.

    Again, if anyone wants to talk about philosophy let me know. Otherwise I will just keep doing what I have been, which is post when I feel a middle ground point of view is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  40. would i send my kid to public school? absolutely.

    but only because we, as parents, are going to take the extra effort needed to make sure our kids do well in school.

    because of my wife, i am in the know, and she will tell you that the teachers teach the curriculum that is required, and they do it every year. in fact, i only had 1 teacher who didnt teach the curriculum, and that was my 9th grade geometry teacher.

    what holds children back in public school is not the teachers, but the asshole parents who wont force their kids to behave, pay attention, and do their work. public schooling doesnt fail because of teaching. it can fail because of the parenting.

    my wife works hard every day and night. here is her usual day:

    she is at school by 7:30 (school starts at 8:15) just to get things ready for the day. she teaches one class until about 11:30. the kids get 25 minutes for lunch, and because her children's recess is at the end of the day and not right after lunch, my wife also gets only 25 minutes a day. but does she? she spends 5 minutes getting the kids to stay in line, and leaves 5 minutes early from the teacher's lounge to get the children back to her classroom. so she really gets 15 minutes for lunch.

    she teaches until about 2:30, when the kids have recess. this means that she gets 30 minutes to either rest, plan, clean, or do whatever she needs to do before the kids get back from recess, where she has 5 minutes to get them ready to get on the bus. then, she spends 3:00 to 3:15 out at junior patrol.

    after that, she plans, grades, goes to meetings, meets with teachers, calls parents, and does other things until about 5. once she gets home, she usually chills until about 8, until she does more grading (she has 65 kids) and plans for the next day, which usually takes her an hour or two.

    she gives kids as many chances as they can. she lets them redo their homework, she tries to explain things. but when she calls the parents to explain behavior, they blow her off, and that is the most discouraging thing of all.

    and homeschool, well, that is wishy washy. my roommate in college was homeschooled, and he was brilliant (moreso than myself). but, his mother was an ex-teacher.

    my mother homeschooled my brother, and my brother is a dumbass. so it can swing either way.

    i dont worry about my kids with public school. it is us parents (future parents) that will make the difference in our kids education. it is not only my duty to make sure my kid learns, but to enforce strict structure and discipline to ensure that they are aware that i will punish/spank/smack the hell out of them if they are preventing other people from learning.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Jas - Sounds like you have a great plan so far. Lucky for you, your wife is on the inside. I agree totally that it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children receive a proper education.

    This is my favorite part of what you said - it is not only my duty to make sure my kid learns, but to enforce strict structure and discipline to ensure that they are aware that i will punish/spank/smack the hell out of them if they are preventing other people from learning.

    Amen Brother!

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Parallax-

    To wrap things up you said:

    "I am sure that you hold that you have refuted my position."

    Oh absolutely. This exchange began with you basically telling me that it was wrong for me to be rude after you said you were a Taoist and didn't know if God existed. You tried to impose some moral code on me saying you try not to be rude so I shouldn't be to you. Now, you have admitted you really have no right to impose morality on anybody (even a culture that wants to have sex with six year old children).

    "Your system is fine so long as it is your system. No good comes from forcing will on to others, even if it is with the best of intentions."

    See this is the difference between relativistic and an objective moral system. What I am saying is that this is not "my" system, this is the morality based upon the character of the God with whom you have to give an account. Doesn't matter whether you accept it or not it is true nonetheless, this is the difference: it's not true for me but not for you it is true for you whether you like it or not.

    ***Which is why based upon your moral system you have no right to stand up against any action and say: "That is wrong!" (your worldview gives you neither foundation nor right to do such a thing) yet Christianity does give me a foundation upon which to stand up and say: "Men having sex with 6 year old children is wrong!" even if the majority think a that behaviour to be upright. But you asked a decent question saying:

    "The only question I would have for you about you universal right and wrong is, why has morality been perpetually changing, even in Christian societies?"

    Well there are several ways to answer this biblically:
    a)Christians could have began to sell out to the cultural values rather than hold countercultural values.

    b)Not all "Christians" are Christians and thus do not hold to biblical standards. Thus the outward church could have had unbiblical moral standards yet I hold that the true church has always held to roughly the same standards through the ages. The only major variation in morality that I can think of is with issues of military service and capital punishment.

    c)I question even the assertion that Christian morality has been undergoing a perpetual change. (Just like I question the assertion that Taoism once dominated China)

    ReplyDelete
  44. See I never demanded or forced you to have a different point of view or attempted to change your moral standing. I just pointed out that being a jerk will have a negative affect.

    I would put forward that your "objective" system is no more objective than mine since no culture has embraced it, all of your "objective" rules are interpreted and enforced by men. While at the end, in your view, god may have final judgement, that does very little to stop those who break the rules now. See, you also have no right to impose your system, because you are not the judge of what is right and what is wrong, God is, and to even assume that you or any mortal can take Gods place in judgement is just asking for trouble. So at the end of the day all you can do is yell at people who can just say no and ignore you, or work to shift the cultural consensus to your moral standard which is basically the relativism you so loath.

    I would also point out that you need to read some history my friend, not only did Christians hold that slavery was fine, beating women was ok, killing your children was allowed, and so too was marrying them of before they were 10. This is fact, it is also fact that while they did the above things, they would rant about how the bible says it was ok and how the "objective" morals were in their favor.

    Finally look it up, do some real reading on the topic, Taoism and Confucianism (a religion with a similar moral system) shared the population of China for a very long time, all they while Chain had laws and ethics and a functioning government.

    For all of your displeasure with my system it seems to work rather well. I have never met a Taoist who has went to jail, or beaten their kids, or is a drug user, or a philanderer. I do on the other hand know that a good number of self proclaimed Christians cannot say the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This will be my final comment on this subject Parallax it has been a decent dialogue and I wanted to hop out before the ad hominem attacks started to fly (which they have). Anyway the bulk of what I want to address is found in this statement:

    "I would put forward that your "objective" system is no more objective than mine since no culture has embraced it, all of your "objective" rules are interpreted and enforced by men. While at the end, in your view, god may have final judgement, that does very little to stop those who break the rules now. See, you also have no right to impose your system, because you are not the judge of what is right and what is wrong, God is, and to even assume that you or any mortal can take Gods place in judgement is just asking for trouble."

    For someone who doesn't know if God exists you sure seem to have a lot of assertions about how to relate to Him (because in reality you know He exists and supress the truth as Paul says in Romans 1). But first things first you say me "objective" moral standard is not objective because it needs to be enforced. I don't think you understand what it means to be objective. By objective it means that it is true if no one agrees, 2+2=4 irregardless if the whole world "feels" that 3 is a better answer. So it is with morality in the Christian worldview because it is based upon that character of God who created the universe. Again this is in contrast to your relative system where morality is arbitrarily stipulated by consensus and thus never objectively defined.

    I have the right to say that action X is wrong because God in His word has revealed X to be wrong. My point is that wether or not people agree the standard changes not because God does not change and the standard is based upon Him. As for rules needing to be enforced, my job is not to make some Christian utopia here on earth, Christian morality isn't for the godless but the Godly, yet both will be judged by God based by the same standard. You say my system is not objective because it needs to be enforced, again morals are not true because people accept them, but are true irregardless of acceptance and enforcement (that's what it means to be objective).Your thinking is upside down because you are pragmatic and relativistic. You seem to think X is true because it works and people like it, when the truth value of X is independent of it "working" and people liking/accepting it. Your pragmatic view of truth is evident as you rant about Christian immorality (which I will address) and speak loftily of the good behaviour of Taoists:

    "For all of your displeasure with my system it seems to work rather well. I have never met a Taoist who has went to jail, or beaten their kids, or is a drug user, or a philanderer. I do on the other hand know that a good number of self proclaimed Christians cannot say the same thing."

    Whether a moral system keeps people out of jail isn't a standard by which we can determine whether that system is true or not. Just because there have been a bunch of losers who called themeslves Christians does not make the system to which they profess invalid. (I forget which logical fallacy this is off the top of my head).

    This next statement of yours I find to be the most self refuting thing you have said yet:

    "and to even assume that you or any mortal can take Gods place in judgement is just asking for trouble."

    Well isn't that what you are doing by saying you aren't sure if God exists and morality is based upon the consensus of men? I mean good night! By saying that morality is based upon consensus you strip God of His right to be God and say "We'll do this morality thing our way thank you very much." Yet you want to say to me who base my moral system on the existance of God and His revealed character that to proclaim such a system is "asking for trouble"? You have no right to make such a statement because based on your philosophical presuppositions you don't even believe in God, and thus don't have a clue what His character is like to begin with.

    Lastly I will take up this statement:

    "I would also point out that you need to read some history my friend, not only did Christians hold that slavery was fine, beating women was ok, killing your children was allowed, and so too was marrying them of before they were 10. This is fact, it is also fact that while they did the above things, they would rant about how the bible says it was ok and how the "objective" morals were in their favor."

    This is where we drift into ad hominem slaps. There were all these "Christians" who were losers basically, and they defended their behaviour saying God approved. Just like Mormons defend the behaviour of Joseph Smith. Well sir firstly I would put it to you and ask: on what standard do you go by that says beating your wife is wrong? Or slavery for that matter? I assume you bring these up because you think they are wrong again you have no standard to say that.

    Now, my point is that I can look at what these "Christians" did and say: "That is wrong." you sir can not. Is Christian morality then just a matter of interpretation? No, although Christians do get it wrong the standard remains the same...for God Himself is the standard. So, even if all the Christians in the world adopt some shlocky relativistic system the truth of God remains.

    ReplyDelete
  46. But you never answered me as to why anyone should believe YOUR version of the truth as opposed to someone else's who uses the exact same arguments as you do.

    It is fine that you do not respond because it is clear you don't like discussion so much as dissection, and only if you are the one with the knife. I do have real questions as to the moral legitimacy of Christianity, and I am sorry if I seemed harsh; it is just you upset me by calling me a liar about history in a previous post.

    I know however, that for my questions to be answered in a logical manner I will have to go elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Parallax - If I may jump in - you asked, Why should anyone believe YOUR version of the truth as opposed to someone else's who uses the exact same arguments as you do?

    Because our "version" of the Truth - Jesus Christ - is the only version that makes such extraordinary claims to be the Way the Truth and the Life and the One and Only True God. Further, our "version" is the ONLY version that offers hope for all mankind through the plan of salvation by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    From my understanding, Taoism provides no such evidence, but rather appeals to your feelings while still leaving you a sense of uncertainty. This is why you are still searching for answers about God, no?

    While you may adopt many of the moral aspects as other religions, God - Jesus Christ - is the Creator of it all and the Ultimate Standard. For without our "version" of God, nothing, including you Parallax would even exist. I don't think you can make such claims with 100% certainty about Taoism - can you?

    Check this out for more info about who Jesus claims to be => Jesus: A Delusional Schizophrenic or God Himself?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Because ours is the ONLY RIGHT ONE!

    Not all paths lead to heaven - There can only be ONE way to God.

    Faith in Jesus Christ is the ONLY way!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ok, then.

    Sorry to take up so much comment space. I am usually not one to rant on other people's site.

    Have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Phronk said - Question for you, Dani. Why is uncertainty a bad thing? And is it better to be certain about something that is may be false, or to withhold absolute certain belief in something that may be false?

    Uncertainty isn't necessarily a "bad" thing - but when you are comfortable being uncertain and you refuse to acknowledge other possibilities which would lead you to be certain that isn't a good thing. I guess it would be bad if you were certain about something that is false, but the whole point of being certain about something means you have already examined all other possibilities, thus eliminating false ideas and leading you to the conclusion of absolute certainty.

    Personally, I think it is absolutely necessary to be certain of your beliefs before sharing them with others - which is why I have this blog. I was uncertain at one time, but now I know the TRUTH for a fact!

    Why is being 100% certain about something a bad thing?

    ReplyDelete
  51. P.S. Parallax - No need to apologize - You are welcome to debate or rant here anytime you want.

    This is a place for anyone who wants to learn.

    Have you learned anything while you've been here?

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  53. this happened in a Church/homeschool. maybe you should be blogging about these SINS"

    One of those arrested, pastor George Otis Johnston, 63, called it "angel kisses'' when he touched one girl sexually before and after church services, the girl told investigators. Johnston also allegedly told the girl that "he was ordained by God to fulfill her needs as a woman.'' The abuse against that girl, prosecutors say, started when she was 8 and lasted until she was 16.

    The youngest of the alleged victims was 4 when the abuse started, according to court papers. The molestation occurred as far back as the late 1970s and as recently as last April, authorities said.

    Johnston is charged with sodomy and child molestation. Also charged are Johnson's nephew, the Rev. Raymond Lambert, 51; Lambert's wife, Patty Lambert, 49; and her brothers Paul Epling, 53, and Tom Epling, 51

    Grand Valley Christian Academy,'' which investigators said was where children from the group were homeschooled

    not all homeschools are safe huh?

    ReplyDelete
  54. My wife & I sent all of our kids to public school. None of them became homosexuals, nor did any of them embrace the religion of evolution. None of them were molested, sexually abused, or forced to comply with "the system."

    All of our kids are committed, faithful Christians. None of them are hateful, bigoted, malicious Nazis (feigning Christianity).

    It just goes to show you that, if parents are doing their job right, they are the ones who influence their children - not everyone else.

    I do honestly fear - and I mean FEAR - for Dani & Curtis' kids. Wow! If they turn out anything like their parents, they will be screwed up, hate-filled, arrogant, abusive and uncivil. And that is NOT what we need more of!

    ReplyDelete

NO TROLLS ALLOWED - Comments will be moderated - Remember, it's always a good idea to tell the TRUTH....