We're giving the government a reason to regulate homeschooling

So, then God allows lies to be written in His Holy Word...? Or is it that we can misinterpret the Bible, but science cannot misinterpret the evidence?

Hmmmmmmmm.

 

I don't have time to comment on all of your thoughts, nor the smarts
but I do want to comment on this.
First I understand that the religious/cultic practices of these people involved orgies, temple prostitution and sex with animals most likely. That is why God wiped them out, they were extremely immoral. Leaving those people to continue to populate or mix with the Jews would have two implications. One, they would bring their foreign worship practices with them, and two, they would likely spread diseases. I don't understand why even the girls were left, but in several passages of scripture in the OT, God told them to kill and burn everything, including children and animals.
I don't understand all of that and it seems cruel, well it IS cruel. But, we have to realize of course that God has his reasons and we may not understand them.
As I studied some of the history of the cities mentioned even in the new testament, their practices were very VERY nasty.

 

Nice point, Seeking.

Also nice, peanut...it is hardly mentioned how evil the practices of some of those societies were.

I also wanted to mention that an atheist can read the bible a million times but will never truly understand the bible. There is a difference between knowledge and understanding.

 

Ken Ham and Dr. John Whitcomb have a video out called Noah's Ark, Thinking Outside the Box, featuring Tim Lovett

It says that Tim got his degree in mechanical engineering from the Sydney University and was an instructor for 12 years. He has studied Noah's Ark for 13 years.
The video explains the dimensions, materials and the building technology used for that time period, and how the ark was designed. There have been drawings of ancient ships in Greece ( If I remember right) that were scaled and designed in very similar manners and all were built using some sort of peg system. The video was very explanatory and answered alot of questions for me. I would recommend kids to watch it, like junior high age or so.

 

For sure, there are errors in translation. It's not always easy to translate between two modern-day languages become some capture ideas and emotions that others do not. It's even more difficult when one of the languages is ancient. Then there are contradictions of the type that I mentioned that are likely to be transcription errors from the originals (because we don't have the originals). Here are the two passages about the wives of Esau. People try to explain the differences away, but there really is no need.

Genesis 26:34 and 28:9

- Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite
- Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite
- Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth

Genesis 36:2-3

- Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite
- Aholibamah, granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite
- Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth

 

You've lost me. Are you taking the verses in the Psalms literally about the earth being fixed?

 

I am just generally pointing out, again, that we choose to believe whatever we choose to believe based on whatever we choose to believe and we always will argue that we have a logical reason to believe whatever we believe with the rationale that we would not believe whatever it is that we believe without logical reasoning to support it.

And, if you believe that the Bible can be misinterpreted, which is evidence that God is perfect and does not lie, then it escapes me why you believe so faithfully in science that it cannot misinterpret evidence it uses to prove evolution, but I am sure you believe you have a very logical reason for believing as you do.

 

That paragraph should win a prize. It reminds me of 40+ years ago when one of the Sunday School competitions was to read Matthew 7 in the KJV. There were so many 'judge's that I was totally confused - rather like all the 'believe's in that paragraph. Still, I think I understand what you wrote.

Actually, I find many parallels between science and biblical hermeneutics. In both cases, we go in search of facts (physical evidence or biblical passages and words) with minimal initial assumptions, and we let those facts speak for themselves. We combine them as we build theories/doctrines. These in turn help us when we consider new facts/other passages. The context of the facts determines their interpretation, and this is crucial. If we get that wrong, we find ourselves with conflicting results.

In both cases, we earnestly strive to be objective and not to put our own slant on things. It's all too easy to bend the facts to fit our ideas. Fred Hoyle tried to do this and was later proved wrong. We all know of individuals who quote bible verses out of context to justify their actions, and again they are wrong to do so. It's very difficult to be totally objective, and we all bring bias to the work. Still, if we get things wrong, the peer review process can be merciless in pointing it out - and this has happened throughout church history as well (Luther and Calvin come to mind).

It's important to face up to the facts. Sometimes we find that they've been misinterpreted for years and we got them wrong simply because of the power of majority or popular opinion or cultural pressures. It's difficult to stand up and be counted in such circumstances, but it's the honest thing to do. If we're honestly striving for the truth, there is nothing to fear. The facts are there for our benefit, to learn and to grow.

However did this thread take so many twists and turns?

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE not to put our own slant on things and that is the point. Science does not let each one of us discover for ourselves, but tells us what we should discover. For instance, in chemistry class, each table burned copper which was to give off a green colored flame, but one particular lab table did not have that result. We already knew the results we should have gotten. One girl wrote up the experiment with the results she should have gotten and her conclusion: she received an "A". Her partner in the experiment wrote up the actual results with a conclusion that the burner itself had a contaminate in it so that the flame was actually red-orange in color when compared to the six other lab table experiments in the room: she got a "C". Now which one was true science?

No matter how you will answer, it also is slanted.

 

Of course science is not unbiased but that doesn't mean it's wrong or that overwhelming evidence doesn't exist for certain theories. Pointing out that the Leaning Tower of Piza has a slant to it doesn't mean it's not a tower or not still standing or not in Piza. Yes, of course people come to science with their own biases. That does nothing to prove in any way that certain outcomes of science are wrong.

This for me is where I find most of my frustration in debates like this. Points are always made around the periphery of evolution, something here about bias, something there about opinions but it's rare to see the actual science of the matter engaged.

 

Of course science can misinterpret evidence. But that doesn't mean a thing in the argument of whether they're misinterpreting specific evidence around evolution. It's important to remember that science has built in mechanisms to deal with such misinterpretations like peer review and the need for replication of results. This is why we know so much about the mistakes, hoaxes and misinterpretations of scientists, because science itself eventually reveals them.

Science is not the Bible and neither the Bible nor science is done any favours when attempts are made to equate the two or equate how people approach the two.

 

No, pointing out the slants does not mean that science is wrong in all areas. However, it is the scientists that point out the flaws in creationism and challenge Christians with those flaws. In this thread alone, those of us who believe in creationism were challenged by "slants" and "flaws". We simply pointed out that science is not perfect and also contains "slants" and "flaws" as well. If a scientist can use those flaws against creationists than be prepared to have the tables turned. No one is saying science has not come up with some solid evidence or true theories. We are just pointing out that science is NOT all knowing and always solid, as most who rely on it claim it to be.

 

I agree that we cannot always equate the two. Yet again, I point out the only ones to equate the two or point out these issues to begin with was a believer in evolution. Rarely, do you find a bunch of christians sitting around thinking of ways to challenge evolutionists. We have pretty much moved on....we only equip ourselves to bring glory to God...we already hold the truth. We have no need to question.

 

Sadly, I think, the concern voiced in the op has been cast aside and buried under the neverending arguement of creation vs evolution. The concern that the government will at some point interfere with hsing is very real. The fact that the orignial poster was concerned that this would take place through a particular avenue, which many appear to disagree with, does not nullify the concern.
Many hsers have expressed a fear or concern that one day the gov might try to regulate hsing in some form. That concern has been voiced by hsers of all flavors of belief. And I have seen it expressed at this very forum many times.
It's no secret at this forum that Steve has a scientific background. As far as I can tell, he has never kept it a secret that he happens to believe in evolution of some form. Do I happen to agree with him on evolution? No. But that doesn't stop me from seeing that he has a valid concern. Should he have worded his op differently? Possibly. Does his poor wording eliminate the potential risk? No!
Maybe there's something more important do be done than beating each other over the head with "you're a dirty rotten stinker because you don't believe in(fill in the blank)". Maybe we as homeschoolers need to think about what we could be doing to eliminate this potential threat. Those of us who happen to be Christians need to stop and think about how this type of infighting looks to those on the outside. It doesn't paint a very Christ-like picture.
Marty

 

Marty...with all due respect...no one is beating up anyone over beliefs. Sorry if it appears that way..but really we are all just hashing things out. Steve is a great guy and I disagree with him at times but it does not change the level of respect I have for him. Now..I'm betting Steve was all too eager to get into the discussion of evolution and creationism..lol...he seems to love that topic. He's a smart guy with very interesting points of view and I think he enjoys sharing it.

I also don't think it paints a very Christ-like picture to not stand firm on your beliefs. It seems when both parties (christian and non-christian) have a discussion it is always the christian being told to buck up and face facts or play nice. That is unfair.

I think Steve had a valid concern. However, if you read his post...his concern was also if we should start teaching evolution because of gvt. issues or something to that nature...LOL. So many of us responded as to why we felt the gvt. should just back off of this issue.

Yes, we all worry about homeschool regulation. Read some of steve's posts...he did put the creation/evolution topic out there for all to discuss. We are not ganging up on him. lol.

No one is angry, upset, or trying to insult. Steve loves to talk about these things...I honestly think he's the last person to feel overwhelmed with posts..but I could be wrong. lol.

 

Actually, I'm glad that Marty refocused the thread. I'm more guilty than most in going down bunny trails, but the point I did originally want to make is that the way we go about things will affect how the government responds. If we just get on with it and keep a low profile, everything will be hunkydory. If we make a big deal of it, try to push ID in public schools, pick public fights with the scientific establishment, try to force "cultural conformity" within the church, and generally be belligerent, then it's going to cause a backlash.

Actually, a good example of this came to light yesterday - but in a completely different area. A few weeks ago, I listened to a sermon in which the speaker quoted something said by a lady called Ann Coulter. I hadn't heard of her before, but the quotation sounded good and most listeners nodded their heads. At the gym yesterday, I watched a news channel while walking the treadmill. Apparently, this lady said something like "all Muslims must be banned from commercial air travel" and "they should use a magic carpet." In response, a Muslim student quite reasonably asked how she was expected to get around, to which Ann Coulter replied "Ride a camel."

What rudeness. What insensitivity. What bigotry. What hatred of others. This is the lady who was quoted in a sermon?! Her "performance" was totally un-Christ-like. My guess is that she's saying the right things to gain the support of Christian groups so she can be rich and famous in public. What a hypocrite!

What is the result? Christians are "seen" (wrongly) as being belligerent, and a reaction ensues: She's barred, apparently, from speaking at the University of Toronto. And will Christian radio stations and the like now support her and cry "violation of free speech?"

Of course, the two situations are very different. I don't mean to imply that making a big public deal of evolution is on a par with this hypocritical "celebrity" making waves, but the principle is the same. If we go about things in a low-key manner, we achieve our objectives without risking public ire. If we make a big deal of it, then don't be surprised if there is a backlash and the threat (or imposition) of government regulation.

And the other point was to be sure our children are well prepared for advanced education by teaching them all sides of an argument - especially when the majority believe something different than we do.

 

Steve, you are making it really hard to stay out of this conversation, lol

 

I agree there could be a backlash. I was not aware that Christians were making a big fat hairy deal out of creationism. Seems to me the gvt. and scientists are making a bigger deal and practically forcing us to agree or risk a backlash.

I have heard of her...surprised you have not. She is like a female Rush Limbaugh. lol. She is very insulting. She uses extremes to make her point. I have to say there are times I have agreed with her...but her insulting manner makes it hard for me to be on her side when I do agree. Sadly, I know MANY Christians and Republicans who love her.

I'm confused...the sermon was condoning what she said? I certainly hope her insulting manner does not earn her fame in christian circles...but she is well received by many as I mentioned. She is not putting on a performance...she really is that crass.

I do think she has the right to say what she wants. I also think that she needs to realize that others have the right not to listen and to ban her if necessary. I support the rights of both parties...to speak and to ban her from speaking at their institution, company, whatever.

I agree. Sometimes we have no choice but to make waves. However, I do not see any reason to rock a boat for the purpose of creating unnecessary waves. You won't find me making a big deal out of things to the gvt. I just quietly do as I please in my homeschool. I would make my voice heard if regulations were put into place...but I would not make my voice heard and the result be government regulations. I know who has the real power...so I steer clear of gvt. involvement.

I 100% agree! I teach my kids all sides. I am NOT afraid to teach outside of my belief system. I welcome it! I love the opportunity to equip my kids for the world. I also think teaching the opposite end shows them God's glory in total.

I must say...I thought your point was that we should teach our kids evolution because we are misleading them...or by not teaching it, we are teaching them falsely and that is enough to have regulations. Because even if I do teach them evolution, I won't teach them it's true...so I'd still be teaching them falsely in your opinion, right? so, does it matter if I teach them evolution is false or not at all? The result is the same. So do you still feel the govt. should come in and regulate based on my teaching my kids falsely? Or did you think they should never come in to begin with? Geesh...this thread took so many turns I've forgotten some details! LOL.

 

Standing firm implies that your feet are not in motion, but firmly planted on a solid foundation from which you can weather any storm that is hurled AT you. The instant your feet go into motion you begin going against whatever is coming at you. In the first case friction is being used against you, in the second you are cause the friction. Friction produces heat. Produce enough heat and you will burn.
Jesus set the perfect example for us when he walked this earth. He did not show up on the Roman government's radar.At his trial, Pilate said Jesus was an innocent man. The radar he did show up on was that of the religious leaders of his day. He exposed their hypocracy, deceit and corruption. He ate with the social outcasts of his time, went to their homes and fellowshipped with them kindly and graciously, putting him squarely in the religious elete's crosshairs.
It took the instigation of the religious leaders to get the Roman government to kill Jesus. The priests even said, "He has broken our laws and must be killed."
If He set the perfect example for us by not putting himself on the civil government's radar, don't you think its wise to follow his example?
I'm not saying that we will never be falsely accussed. However, I think it's better to be falsely accussed than to give an excuse for being accussed. Better to burn from the friction being used against you than to burn from the friction you caused.
Marty

 

Point taken...excellent way to look at it..thank you. I love the way you said that and it makes perfect sense. In fact it is quite wise. Thanks...really. I will take what you said to heart. I love your friction example. Although, I think that we cause friction no matter what we do..lol. but standing firm and not moving toward...hmmm...nice...