You Shall Have No Other Gods

Hmm. I’m going to say that the goal is education. The goal is introducing children to diversity and understanding of different cultures. Humanism basically means to affirm the worth and substance of all people. It’s a concept, not a religion.

You know, your world view is interesting to me. It depends upon some very important factors. A “patriarchal” husband that can bring in enough money to feed the children without the wife going to work, and a wife with enough education to teach the children. Would you say that a high school dropout mother should be teaching her children? Is that okay?

And what if women are never truly educated to do anything but take care of the house? (BTW, I am not saying anything against your choice to be home…really, that’s up to you). What if that husband dies? What if he goes bankrupt? How do these women support their children then? You’re dealing with a Garden of Eden mentality here, in my humble opinion.

Someone much smarter than I am on Evolution….

“The distinction between fact and theory in evolutionary studies is probably best explained by Stephen Jay Gould:

In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact” — part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science — that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”

So yes, evolution is fact. The world is not flat, either. I’m not trying to be insulting here, it’s just it is what it is.

I’m sure you’re a good teacher to your children, but…well. See above!

Thank you so much for boldly standing firm on controversial topics. Your posts on education have been very timely for this reader.
I was home-schooled, and I plan to disciple my future children at home someday as well. Lately I have been challenged to go beyond the assumption that home education must be best because my wonderful parents did it. Instead, I must thoroughly search out what Scripture says about education, the details of why I will home-educate, why there is no other option for me, and how it should be done Biblically. I am enjoying the book When You Rise Up as part of this journey. Your posts have been an additional and complementary blessing. I always eagerly await the next!

thank you so much Kelly for being willing to write about what God’s Word so plainly says. it is a balm to my soul and a light in the darkness. Keep on lighting those candles!:)

MOD–A Christian world view depends on ONE thing–God–His Word, His Grace. circumstances don’t change truth, God’s truth is what equips us to handle our circumstances. It is the filter by which we appreciate, understand and learn about the world He created. I would encourage you to read more carefully about the claims of evolution. I can say that it is amazing just how much we can take things as true just because we heard it over and over without it necessarily being true. I am constantly humbled and amazed at how much of my thinking needs to be refined or pieces literally thrown out as garbage!:) As a Christian, I ask God to daily reveal His wisdom which by the way will look like foolishness to the secular world, so that my mind may be renewed and strengthened in His ways. As Christians we are called to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are responsible for making sure that happens. It is Christians that are primarily being addressed on the issue of education.

Just a few thoughts/questions…

If we Christians believe that the bible is the one true source for wisdom and how to live our lives, how does one ‘justify’ biblically sending their children to public school? I am not trying to be antagonistic, I really want to know what scripture the Lord would lead you to for a basis for that decision.

I have seen, read and heard of the scripture that the other side of this discussion uses.

Not trying to bring up a touchy subject, but same with birth control. It seems that those who are ‘biblically convicted’ to homeschool, no-birth control, women not working, ect. at least have scripture to back it up, (whether or not you agree with their ‘interpretation’ or not.)

Does this make sense? So, if it is just a matter of interpretaton, what scripture do you believe supports NOT homeschooling? Using birth control? Women working outside the home, ect.?

This line of thinking only works for those who believe the bible is not lacking at all when it comes to everything we need to know on how to live our lives, even the topics that aren’t black and white. God did not leave us to just scratch our heads and figure things out on our own, right?

I LOVE the quote:
“In the absence of Biblical conviction, you go the way of culture.”

2 Tim. 3:16
Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action),

Madgebaby,

It’s tragic that you would base a decision to homeschool or not on a “handful of HS kids” who did poorly by your estimation. (Gee, for every “negative hs case”, how many public-schooled equals could we count?)

I know literally hundreds of HS…in the homeschool defense, I don’t know a single “crash and burn”, many of them are now thriving in college (many are pursuing a higher education through other avenues) and all of them are far more educated than any child I ever taught in high school (not exaggerating at all).

I just really hate to see someone who has hardly any experience observing homeschoolers and then form an opinion based on a few isolated cases that they were probably looking to be negative in the first place.

It’s kind of like saying, “I know these people who died because their seatbelt had them trapped in the car, so I’m not going to wear my seat belt.”

Do the research, then make the call.

Mother of Dog – What a ridiculous thing for Stephen Jay Gould to have said! I can only imagine, with a mind as great as his, that such a statement betrays mild intellectual dishonesty rather than stupidity.

Here is the thing. I am an intellectually open, very bright person; I am not the kind of person who fears my children learning about evolution in school. However, if we are being honest, we will see that evolution is not a fact in the true sense of the word. The fossil record, which is used to support the theory of evolution, is factual. The various analogous structures between species are facts. That there are changes within a species that make the species more reproductively fit is a fact. That radioactive dating is accurate is (somewhat more arguably) a fact.

However, nothing in any of these statements of fact precludes the existence of a Creator who, instead of causing the evolution of one species into another species, instead created (continues to create?) each species individually. There is absolutely nothing in the body of scientific knowledge that definitively establishes evolution as fact or precludes alternate theories to explain the facts. While the facts used to support evolution are indeed factual, neither the mechanism nor the basic theory of evolution is incontrovertible. And Stephen Jay Gould absolutely knows that, which is why I believe his comment was disingenuous at best.

You probably believe that the Biblical account of creation is not a fact just because the Bible says it is. Well, I believe that evolution is not a fact just because Stephen Jay Gould says it is.

Humanism is a religion, as Dunphy so clearly stated. When the Bible states “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”, how can we reason, then, that He would allow us to have our children taught another religion? What else is “following other gods” if not that? This is why this issue is so black and white to me. (emphasis mine)

Kelly – Following other gods is, well, following other gods. If humanism is a godless religion, then allowing our children to be taught this religion is not allowing them to follow other gods…unless you argue that the “god” of humanism is oneself, and then I perhaps see your point.

For what it’s worth, and maybe this has to do with the area I live in, I agree with madgebaby for the most part. Most of the teachers in my schools growing up were Christians, and though evolution was presented to the class as a very brief lesson in science class, it was certainly not presented as Truth with a capital T.

Kelly, I know you object to public school, but what is your opinion of private Christian schooling? Presumably kids are protected there from evolutionary theory…right?

lazarquita,

Yes, I do contend that one’s self is the god of humanism, and the Bible speaks just as plainly about the sin of following the dictates of one’s heart, rather than God’s.

I mentioned earlier that Christian education is an alterntive to public school, though I wouldn’t personally embrace it unless circumstances forbade me to homeschool. (I taught at a Christian high school.)

I’m truly not trying to argue with you here, but please do read below -again, fact.

“The five ideas below seem to be the most common misconceptions about Evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don’t know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below.

“Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.”

First, we should clarify what “evolution” means. It has more than one meaning. Biologically, it means “a change in allele frequencies over time.” By that definition, evolution is an indisputable and observable fact. Most people seem to associate the word “evolution” mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution “only a theory” is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. There is a confusion between what “theory” means in informal usage, and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply ‘tentativeness’ or ‘lack of certainty’. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more compactly. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for predicting anything. When it does make predictions, they prove to be false.) Find out more about what a theory in science really is here.

Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming that conclusions are infallible is ridiculous, as has been shown by the past several centuries of scientific reasoning. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn’t 100% certain, or fully understood. Many non-scientists don’t understand this; creationists use it as an argument against the ‘theory’ of evolution, which is ridiculous … you might as well argue that gravity is a theory (it is far from being completely understood), and that we can’t assume objects will always fall to the ground. Again, see our Theories in Science page if you aren’t sure what we mean.

It is a FACT that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. There is evidence in the ground, and in cave paintings, and in our own DNA.

Since Darwin’s time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution – that ‘all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth’s long history’. Indeed, ‘all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time’. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution, has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has–evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, cellular biology, and others. There is the agreement among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time; for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas – from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology. These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates.

If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant, or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

“Evolution has never been observed.”

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor!

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. “Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila.” Nature. 230:289-292).

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn’t been observed. Evidence isn’t limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

Consider first how evolutionists interpret similarities between species living today. Present-day humans and chimpanzees, despite obvious external and behavioral differences, have extremely similar internal organs and physiological functions; indeed their genes are more than 98% identical. Just as the resemblance between two siblings suggests a common parentage, resemblance between species suggests common ancestors. Evolutionists believe that humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor: an ape-like creature that lived perhaps five to ten million years ago, rather recently on the geological time scale. Species less similar to humans than are apes–mice, for example–are believed to have branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor. Evolutionary family tree diagrams that express such relationships between species have been constructed by evolutionary biologists by analyzing similarities of present-day organisms. In many cases, fossilized remains of extinct species can be used to support the features of such evolutionary trees.

What hasn’t been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn’t propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

“Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”

This shows more a misunderstanding about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Entropy is an indication of ‘unusable’ energy, and often (but not always!) corresponds to what we might think of as disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder, and never the reverse.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere. If ‘order from disorder’ is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why does it happen so often in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations. For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for ‘differential reproductive success’. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than the others. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical laws.

“There are no transitional fossils.”

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it’s from an organism intermediate between two different creatures. To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable.
Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils millions of years later goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is aggravated by the way we think about species. When people think about a category like “dog” or “ant,” they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category. Actually, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and doesn’t.

“The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.”

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn’t understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are ‘selected’ (ie: those with the variation succeed in reproducing more often than those without it), leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor was the origin of the very first ‘life’ due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn’t need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex at all. Moreover, the molecules build on one another; life didn’t spring into being overnight, but was the end result of millions of years of chemical bonding that created, one after the other, larger and more complicated molecules.

authenticallyMe,

When I taught in the public schools, I was teaching on the same floor with other teachers who were from the Unitarian Church, the Jehovah Witnesses and those who claimed to believe in “nothing” but man. Listen, there is NO NEUTRAL ground in the public school arena. Your children are being taught a worldview daily. A teacher does not become numb while educating your children. Teachers will promote something, and it may not be the LORD JESUS CHRIST! Again, there is no such thing as neutrality……

Secondly, Kelly, if your readers believe that just because a teacher is in the public schools that she is educated or prepared to teach…….they are being naive! I sent plenty of complaints as a teaching mentor to local colleges telling them that not only were these student teachers not prepared to conduct classroom discipline, but they were not prepared academically either! Just like Keith Green used to state….just because you walk into McDonald’s doesn’t make you a hamburger, the same with public educators… just because they walk into a classroom, doesn’t make them teachers.
I do not think a parent has to have a college degree to teach their own children. As a homeschooling mom, I have thrown out almost all of “teacher training”. I have learned more teaching my children these past 11 years than I could have ever learned in college!

Again, I know as a former teacher in the public schools that when you send your children to those institutions, you ARE getting more than the 3 R’s taught to them. Be very careful…..dig deeper into Scripture.

I am sorry for posting again…

I thought of a quote from Otto Scott that may be appropriate here. *note-the socialization is not just coming from peers in the schools*

“Education is slow, socialization is quick.”

I went to a christian school and so did my DS(14). At both times, my son and I had several kids that got kicked out of public school and “grandma” paid private school tuition to get their grand kids help because the parents didn’t give a rip. So the problem kids were sent to the Christian school to “get straighten” out. But in the end they caused conflict and rebellion in a place that was supposed to be protected from what we would have faced in the public school. They should have been kicked out of the christian school as well, but the principals were too scared to.
So yeah, in our experience even the christian schools aren’t safe either.

MOD-
You seem afraid. You are continuously repeating that evolution is fact…who are you trying to convince? It appears you are trying to convince yourself.

MOD: Using the flat earth analogy for yor arguement for evolution, seems a little strange to me. There was a time when the general public believed the earth was flat, and later as more information was gained, that “theory” completely changed. That’s the problem with science. The “facts” of today are often the laughable analogies (flat earth) of tomorrow.

That’s the beauty of believing God and His Word. It never changes, never wavers and is always 100% true.

With respect,
Jamie

Mother of Dog,

No, I wasn’t trying to be insulting. A lot of teachers in the public school system do care and work hard, however, if you taught too, you should know that teachers are limited in being able to teach effectively in an educational system that does not work. The research supports homeschooling.

As for the teaching degree and the parents being unprepared statement, a parent loves that child more than any teacher could possibly even begin to care. Going to college doesn’t equal preparedness. A willingness to learn is far more important.

MOD, when I was teaching the 26 in my classroom, I knew that I could NOT meet all of the needs of my 26 students. Even if I could, the next year and the next may not be as productive. At that point, the student will have to pick it up on his own. There is no guarantee of any consistency in the public educational system. A lot of parents who send their children to public school or even private school homeschool too–they just do it at night when they help them with their homework.

Once again Leslie – I’m just asking for standards. If college is not a standard you accept, than there should be others. As a member of this society, I want children to be educated. If you say they are, what’s the harm in standards? 🙂

No one can deny the public schools can be challenging. I’m not even denying the merits of homeschooling. But the feeling I often get from this blog is that this is NOT about the best education for your child. This is about shielding a child from “contamination.”

Just in case you think this is about Christian homeschooling, I’ve seen much the same with lefty liberal homeschoolers. Some do fine, some could use more socialization.

I certainly believe you care about education, Kelly. But I think we have a different understanding of that word. Once again, I am not – and have never said – that homeschooled children cannot be well-educated. Where did I say that? I said that you should be subject to standards. Once again, if the children are as far ahead as you say – then what is the problem? Wait- I know. This is about your civil rights.

You sure take your civil rights rather seriously when they are YOURS, that’s all I’ll say! LOL!

“With all due respect, I think you unknowingly embarass yourself with some of your comments because you are so very far from our worldview. The *best* education, according to those who embrace the authority of Scripture, is “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”

I don’t feel in the least bit sheepish about asking questions. I appreciate that you take the time to answer.

Heh, Jen. Whatever! I give up. If the documentation of some incredibly credible science doesn’t convince you, you simply refuse to accept fact. How can you possibly refute everything presented? It’s a little like saying, no that ISN’T the sky. It’s – I’m sorry – but it truly is nonsense to refute it. I’m sure a part of you knows this. You are clearly a bright woman.

*Bangs head against wall*

“Even if every teacher claims Christ, their hands are pretty much tied (except for encouraging “the golden rule”) by a system that was at it’s core designed to destroy belief in God”

That just isn’t true. They are designed to educate empirically. That is often at odds with a desire to teach through faith which is not the same as FACT.

Oh well. You’re all so nice and mean the best for everyone, I can tell.

Mother of Dog,
Have you watched the movie Expelled? I would be curious to hear what you have to say about it.

Shyla, I cannot comment on Ben Stein here without using language that Kelly would not approve of, lol.

But he's a **&&$%%##$!!! in my opinion! I found that movie complete hogwash, full stop.

Hi gentelShepherd,

You said:

***If we Christians believe that the bible is the one true source for wisdom and how to live our lives, how does one ‘justify’ biblically sending their children to public school? I am not trying to be antagonistic, I really want to know what scripture the Lord would lead you to for a basis for that decision.

I have seen, read and heard of the scripture that the other side of this discussion uses. ***

Really? Ive seen scripture used all over the place to support both sides…and yes, I do have my won. But, it seems, what does it matter-my “interpretation” will be criticized……why waste my time? In short…I read some scripture as being less ‘boundaried’ than others. My box in which i live and think may be a little bigger than yours. If you are looking for EXACT scripture that doesnt leave one scratching his head….you will find it, simply because that is what you are looking for.

I svcratch my head all the time concerning God. There are not a ton of cut and dry answers for me in the Bible. Many require prayer, relationship God, good relationships with other trustworthy, safe people…discernment, wisdom, etc.

***This line of thinking only works for those who believe the bible is not lacking at all when it comes to everything we need to know on how to live our lives, even the topics that aren’t black and white. God did not leave us to just scratch our heads and figure things out on our own, right?***

Well, it doesnt work that way for me. I think the bible supplies the main points on how to live life, and demonstrates and paints principles and commands to live by. But, the way each person takes in that information, differs. Its more intricate than that.

Yes i have done much of my own individual scripture study…..years of it. no preachers, no sermons on tape, nada. Just me, my Bible and God….and I feel I learned a lot and became free from trying to obey every tittle of the law.

I am wondering how most homeschoolling fanilies really run into and have opportuinities to know and befriend other people out in the world? i was never one much given to hospitality, or evangelizing, but being out amongst others on a daily basis has taught me much and keeps me on my toes. I see the needs of others, nad have chnaces to be there for them, listen to them, show compassion and concern. I know when my friends and I homeschooled, we were too busy with field trips, school, church activities, bible studies that included moms and kids, etc……….to have much time left to be out in the world at all. TODAY, I have learned hospitality, how to use my gifts of compassion, and how to speak to people and show love and concern, and it appears people are really touched by it. Maybe we all have different things given by God to accomplish in our lives…..and having my kids in school helps me do that? maybe those women who work, do that.

Even Jesus broke the rules. Because Jesus doesnt equal His Rules. He is above it. He, the person, still is of more importance than the rule. And I believe he regards man like that, too. People were gasping and shocked when Christ healed on the Sabbath. I seriously think he did that to demonstrate-people are ALWAYS above and of eternal importance, even above His Own rules. The Pharisees of the day were appalled…..others were frightened. When others try to convince me that homeschooling and scripture supporting it is of higher moral importance than how we treat people…I just dont get it.

Theres one Scripture for ya. Not the one you wanted, but it works for me for MY point.

Anyway, Like the adulterous woman, I have no accusers. For every finger pointed at any of us for not ‘looking at the truth’, there are 3 pointed back.

Ok, Kelly, thank you for that, very much, and I do hear your heart. I do not blame you that the things I say seem to match up with heresy, but I dont think thats true, but I see where you are coming from and can respect that.

You are right; I cannot imagine the time that goes into reading all the posts and keeping up with it all. I imagine sometimes it must even be difficult for *you* to enjoy the blog itself. I was erroneous in having a higher expectation of you in that regard. I could not possibly keep up with a blog that brings in this much traffic, so I really cannot speak on that.

I understand your grave convictions on keeping ‘heresy’ out of your blog, or screenign it daily-but I dont think ANYONE here would blame you if you messed up sometimes. Life happens, and no one would expect you to have a ‘perfect’ blog. We know (at least, NOW I know) you are doing the best you can. THANLK YOU for telling me that; aids me in understanding.

I know I go on and on about LOVE, but I am likewise going to stick to my conviction of ‘truth’ on relationships with people being higher than anything we could debate over. And, yes, i was hurt and dismayed; not only here but life in general lately. But some of what I say here is observing possibly careless treatment of people when there is no agreement (again, not talking about you here……but yes this blog and some of its posters and you come to mind, but I am moreso speaking on a whole of what I have seen in the Christian Body…)

Thank you for your reply.

MOD,

There is also quite a bit of science to back up creation and other Biblical events. I would encourage you to research it with an open mind. A good place to start is http://www.icr.org/.

Kelly,

You are an encouragement to many of us. Please keep it up.

Mother of Dog said:

“Since I’m never going to believe that the Bible is the word of God or that Jesus is the Son of God and my personal savior, and you’ll never believe that we descended from apes – we should probably agree to disagree. 🙂 I was joking before but it is a head banging against the wall situation. One clearly has faith or does not.”

Yes, we have run into this need to “disagree agreeably” before 🙂

I do still hold to the comment I made about *faith* being essential to either worldview, though. Although there are religious connotations, the first two dictionary options I read are not specifically religion-bound.

Faith can be simply “belief” or agreement of the mind, with or without probable evidence. Or, the acceptance as true what is declared by another. I condensed the two–but the need for a particular theology isn’t a prerequisite to either definition.

Authenticallyme, I do understand some of your frustration. Hubby and I have been allowing God to strip away layers of what my husband calls “churchianity”. It can hurt–and leave rather vulnerable areas until the day-to-day trusting relationship has been strengthened. Not having a religious crutch upon which to lean can, at times leave a person feeling “lost” as you no longer have a pat answer for everything.

It can also cause some eyebrows to lift as other Christians often question whether your current path is a wise one. Sometimes their reaction is one of genuine concern–other times it can be due to a sense of self-righteous indignation. Occasionally, it is hard to tell the difference.

You are correct to point out the lack of love which many professing Christians display. Sometimes it can be due to a simple misunderstanding–or the fact that we are human and can give in to selfish desires as we interact.

I also wanted to reply with references to the parables of the sheep and goats—and the wheat and tares. Not all who say “I am a Christian” belong to the Kingdom. This doesn’t mean we should run about trying to determine who is and isn’t “for real”. The Bible states that in many instances it won’t be obvious until the “harvest”. But it is fair warning for each of us to be checking our own hearts to be sure our focus is on serving Jesus and that our motives are pure.

In my experience, God can use a variety of methods (even some which can be quite alarming at times) to bring His children to where we need to be. Keep searching for His truth. He is faithful to give to those who are diligently seeking.

Heather,

Thank You for your words, and understanding. Very nicely stated.

AM

momx3,

***I would just like to add that MOD is severely confused about the Christian mind set. I would like to make a leap and say that she clearly based on her screen name and image either has no children or is ashamed of them in some way or another. ***

clearly? really? how do you know?how can you before the God you serve, say that she is clearly is ashamed of her children? i cannot even read the rest of any good you may have wrote, due to that statment. is this how God wants us to speak? and if she by chance has no children, what is the point? some people have no children.

this is just so crazy to me. have i lost my mind?

well, something good shall come out of the whole thing. i am devoting time to reading, re-reading and studying the 4 gospels, to study further what Jesus really said…….and can we treat people insensitively if we are indeed preaching truth?