a TEST is coming

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Armin said:

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

And Germany.

Yes. Undoubtly.

As you know, I'm something of a Germanophile, at least a little bit. I think the language is cool and I have an admiration for many aspects of its culture and people. But among the things I really dislike about Germany, their absolute outlawing of homeschooling is at or near the top of the list. It encapsulates the fearful tyranny and groupthink that, rightly or wrongly, characterized Germany in the popular imagination of mid-20th-century Americans.

In essence, Germany is a state that refuses to trust parents to rear their own children. I can think of few government systems more terrifying.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Me: I agree with [some gospel principle] but how do you specifically apply that principle or what is your opinion about [some related but perhaps difficult situation – perhaps even something I have questioned and considered for a very long time hopping for deeper than surface insight].

And, incidentally, this is total crap. This is not what you do at all. It is entirely disingenuous to constantly imply that those who disagree with your views are less than Christlike and then claim with wide-eyed innocence that you''re just exploring ideas.

Edited September 21, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If the parents are doing a good job of overseeing the education of their children they would know how the that all public schools are is affecting their children negatively and would know to pick a better school if it is not working out get them out immediately.

Fixed.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Fixed.

My kids are in public school.  I will pit my children against yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

As you know, I'm something of a Germanophile, at least a little bit. I think the language is cool and I have an admiration for many aspects of its culture and people. But among the things I really dislike about Germany, their absolute outlawing of homeschooling is at or near the top of the list. It encapsulates the fearful tyranny and groupthink that, rightly or wrongly, characterized Germany in the popular imagination of mid-20th-century Americans.

In essence, Germany is a state that refuses to trust parents to rear their own children. I can think of few government systems more terrifying.

Yes.  Very frustrating indeed.  I have a friend who is working in Germany but they don't claim residence/citizenship in Germany for this particular reason.   The US/SOFA-allied military families have no problem at all not enrolling their kids in German schools and letting everybody know about it.  But the civilian ones have to be careful not to get their neighbors overly curious that would get them scrutinized by German authorities.

Edited September 21, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My kids are in public school.  I will pit my children against yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Good luck.

[anatess2]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Good luck.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Of course I would hope that you realize that the outcome of the children isn't the point. Let me explain.

Let's say there's a highway, on the other side is some-needed-something-or-other-for-children, and the highway, being not too busy, may be crossed fairly safely by children, as long as they're taught, very carefully, to look both ways, etc. Many parent don't bother to teach their children to look both ways, and consequently, sometimes... But over time the highway gets more and more busy. Some extremists decide that instead of sending their kids across a busy rode, they're going to build a bridge, but the best they can do is a rope bridge, and without carefully teaching the children how to navigate the rope bridge, the children are prone to fall off it. Over time, however, the bridge is strengthened and improved, and becomes quite usable, still with some careful guidance (stay away from the edge, don't jump up and down, etc). And the highway becomes even busier. Eventually it gets to a point where the road is so busy that children di on it daily, and the bridge only loses a child now and again. But many, still set in their ways, and somehow obvious to the dangers, determine to continue having their children cross the road traditionally via stringent look-both-ways-ism.

Now...let's say you and I both send our children to grandmas, you via the look-both-ways method in ridiculous crazy traffic where children die daily, and me via the bridge, where every so often some kid falls. And let's say you were extra careful in teaching your children to look both ways and run like the wind when a chance opening appeared. And let's just say that your children make it across safely and mine, even though I was diligent in my don't-rough-house-on-the-bridge teachings, due to their own agency they roughhoused and did not make it. Is it therefore logical from the outcome that you made the better choice not using the bridge?

Analogy over.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Because I have lived most of my life and work in the “secular” world, making a living – It seems to me that religious thinkers without much of any scientific background want to argue that anytime there appears to be a conflict between the observable empirical world and their religious theories that all such empirical observations are “against G-d”.  Mostly making the distinction between secular and religious thinking as though there is nothing common between them. 

Most atheists and agnostics I know and work with once lived in a religious home (mostly Christian) and as they pursued empirical understanding; encountered conflicts with what they were told growing up in a religious home (example 6000-year-old earth verses a preponderance of empirical evidence the earth is billions of years older than 6,000 years).  They are then told that to believe secular stuff; means that they cannot believe in G-d.  So, they began to think there must not be a G-d that would lie with evidence and hide the truth of his doings and tell man something different with revelation.  They become atheists or agnostic.   Most scientists do not see things as secular or religious rather they see all truth as being interrelated. 

I think it is a mistake for those religious thinkers to suggest that empirical evidence of things is evil and worldly and therefor against G-d.

 

The Traveler

Empiracal evidence is a funny thing. Empiracal by whose standard? I believe many in the scientific community misuse the word. There isnt empiracal evidence for how old the earth is- whether it be a short amount of time or long amount of time. On that same plane of thought, many assume too much based off of mans faulty thinking and in the end assume its God and not themselves that must be wrong and thus why we have a large secular (against God) society.

[JoCa]

32 minutes ago, Armin said:

By the way, can you imagine a US president who will take office for the fourth legislative period like some German chancellor...?

 

Umm. We did; his name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

We also had a another tyrant . . .but he also died. 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Since you are struggling with the figurative, let me be literal. Here's the literal conversation:

.......

Stop responding like I'm saying that finding common ground is the evil. I'm not. I didn't say it and don't believe it. I'm talking about finding common ground with evil being evil. You can't cut out half the meaning behind what I'm saying and then expect decent communication to continue.

I thought that there is a communication problem.  Perhaps if I try again - and please I am just asking a question trying to understand what you are saying. 

when you say

Quote

I'm talking about finding common ground with evil being evil.

I have no idea what you mean by not finding common ground with evil?  Are you talking about a specific person you have dealt with that is pure 100% evil?  I wonder and ask questions (like the previous one) to try to clarify what you are trying to say.  If you are talking about a person – I am curious who you might have encountered that has no good in them or who anyone could encounter that they should not attempt to find some good common ground with???

I agree with you that a big test is coming – and that the test is specific to the love of Christ – that I believe applies to mortal men and women we will encounter.  I believe the test is of love – sometimes love of our enemies.  I believe it is up to the Saints to call repentance with an expression of love.  I also, from my own experience, find it difficult or perhaps impossible to express love towards someone we are angry with.  So, when I am angry – I deal with my anger first before trying to deal with those that have made me angry.  I try to only post on this forum when I am not angry – sometimes I will say a little prayer first.

I am surprised when questions seem to cause anger or when I suggest something like finding common ground and the person responds with what appears to me to be compromises rather than searching for common ground.  I try to correct that misunderstanding – by pointing out that even Jesus sought to find common ground – example with the Samaritans.  In contrast the Pharisees made no effort to find common ground with Samaritans.  So, I may hint that, at least to me, that a refusal to try to find common ground may be more evil that what we think is evil in others that seem to oppose our ideas.

But this is me.  I cannot survive and say my prayers at night if I have spent the day finding evil in others.  Asking G-d to curse my enemies has left me with an evil spirit to get through the night with.  So I try to find some good I have with someone that opposes me.  I wonder if you have ever had a similar experience?   I wonder how you deal with those you are having a hard time finding good common ground with? 

Thank you for responding to my posts and giving your opinion - I think I am getting to know you a little better.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course I would hope that you realize that the outcome of the children isn't the point. Let me explain.

Let's say there's a highway, on the other side is some-needed-something-or-other-for-children, and the highway, being not too busy, may be crossed fairly safely by children, as long as they're taught, very carefully, to look both ways, etc. Many parent don't bother to teach their children to look both ways, and consequently, sometimes... But over time the highway gets more and more busy. Some extremists decide that instead of sending their kids across a busy rode, they're going to build a bridge, but the best they can do is a rope bridge, and without carefully teaching the children how to navigate the rope bridge, the children are prone to fall off it. Over time, however, the bridge is strengthened and improved, and becomes quite usable, still with some careful guidance (stay away from the edge, don't jump up and down, etc). And the highway becomes even busier. Eventually it gets to a point where the road is so busy that children di on it daily, and the bridge only loses a child now and again. But many, still set in their ways, and somehow obvious to the dangers, determine to continue having their children cross the road traditionally via stringent look-both-ways-ism.

Now...let's say you and I both send our children to grandmas, you via the look-both-ways method in ridiculous crazy traffic where children die daily, and me via the bridge, where every so often some kid falls. And let's say you were extra careful in teaching your children to look both ways and run like the wind when a chance opening appeared. And let's just say that your children make it across safely and mine, even though I was diligent in my don't-rough-house-on-the-bridge teachings, due to their own agency they roughhoused and did not make it. Is it therefore logical from the outcome that you made the better choice not using the bridge?

Analogy over.

Well, the analogy only works if your public school "kills children daily".  Not all public schools are run by brain dead liberals.  And not all non-public schools are bridges who do not "kill children daily".  Hence, the importance of... Betsy deVos.

And it's quite insulting to imply that I would support crossing a road that kills children daily just because mine didn't.  Extremism is bad and it is wise to avoid it.

Edited September 21, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Are you talking about a specific person you have dealt with that is pure 100% evil? 

No.

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe the test is of love – sometimes love of our enemies. 

I agree that loving our enemy is an important test of life. I'm not certain it's "the" test that the quote is discussing, but perhaps a part of it.

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe it is up to the Saints to call repentance with an expression of love.

Agreed.

Or, perhaps, that calling for repentance IS an expression of love, and that if it is not done as an expression of love then there's a problem.

Where I'm not sure we align in our thinking is in a supposition I have from your comments that whether one is successful in expressing love or not is dependent on the receiver's perception. Maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to clarify.

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I also, from my own experience, find it difficult or perhaps impossible to express love towards someone we are angry with. 

I do not a agree. Though I do agree that, generally speaking, anger is to be avoided (with the exception of righteous anger as inspired by the Spirit of God), I think that one can, even imperfectly feeling anger, still act in a loving manner.

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

So, when I am angry – I deal with my anger first before trying to deal with those that have made me angry.  I try to only post on this forum when I am not angry – sometimes I will say a little prayer first.

Sounds like a good approach.

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am surprised when questions seem to cause anger

I am surprised that you don't understand how insinuation comes through questioning so easily. If I ask someone, "You believe in murdering little babies, don't you?" there is clear insinuation. Maybe this is something you need to learn. Many, many people (including myself) use questions as a tactic for insinuation. Do you really not realize this?

Moreover, these... "You have misjudged God. You think God requires that those he loves accept his plan of salvation. If someone refuses to recognize common ground they lack Christ-like love.  It would seem to you that common ground is compromising." sorts of things ARE NOT QUESTIONS.

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

or when I suggest something like finding common ground and the person responds with what appears to me to be compromises rather than searching for common ground.

You misunderstood my point. I misunderstood your question: (To be fair, you simply said "I am not sure where you are getting your information." It was a pretty easy misread as to what you meant by the generic "information" in this.)

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, the analogy only works if your public school "kills children daily".  Not all public schools are run by brain dead liberals.  And not all non-public schools are bridges who do not "kill children daily".  Hence, the importance of... Betsy deVos.

And it's quite insulting to imply that I would support crossing a road that kills children daily just because mine didn't.  Extremism is bad and it is wise to avoid it.

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating flat out that anyone who sends their children to public schools in today's climate is asking for trouble. You may avoid that trouble, but that doesn't change the reality that the trouble exists. Moreover, the usage of "you" in the analogy was part of the analogy, as clearly indicated by the words, "if you". You can take any insult you want from the broad idea, but the specific application to you within the analogy was not meant as a personal slight. Replace it with "someone" if you're offended.

Clearly the example was meant to be somewhat extreme as an EXAMPLE. That's how examples work.

That being said, I'd dare say the souls of our children are much more important than their lives, which are precious beyond measure. And I do believe that our children's chance of getting hit by a theoretical spiritual bus in public school nowadays is high, and getting higher all the time.

And no, the analogy is not dependent on school killing children daily. It works if the risk of public school is higher than the risk of public school or homeschooling. It's a very, very simple idea. It's basic risk analysis. Basic cost/benefit. It's nothing complicated.

Edited September 21, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have no idea what you mean by not finding common ground with evil? 

Incidentally, I'm not sure what's so complicated about this. Take it to the extreme: Do you believe in finding common ground with Satan is important?

Just because people aren't Satan (mostly) doesn't make the concept so hard as to be incomprehensible.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating flat out that anyone who sends their children to public schools in today's climate is asking for trouble. You may avoid that trouble, but that doesn't change the reality that the trouble exists. Moreover, the usage of "you" in the analogy was part of the analogy, as clearly indicated by the words, "if you". You can take any insult you want from the broad idea, but the specific application to you within the analogy was not meant as a personal slight. Replace it with "someone" if you're offended.

Clearly the example was meant to be somewhat extreme as an EXAMPLE. That's how examples work.

That being said, I'd dare say the souls of our children are much more important than their lives, which are precious beyond measure. And I do believe that our children's chance of getting hit by a theoretical spiritual bus in public school nowadays is high, and getting higher all the time.

And no, the analogy is not dependent on school killing children daily. It works if the risk of public school is higher than the risk of public school or homeschooling. It's a very, very simple idea. It's basic risk analysis. Basic cost/benefit. It's nothing complicated.

And like I said, not all public schools in the United States of America have risks so high that it overshadows the risks of non-public school teaching or a child's community in general.  At least in the state of Florida - which is a purple state run by a Republican governor with a thick bible-belt heritage and a beneficiary of the works of deVos - you can't say that at all.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And like I said, not all public schools in the United States of America have risks so high that it overshadows the risks of non-public school teaching or a child's community in general. 

That's your opinion. Which explains your actions. Which you are welcome to both.

To be clear -- if you care -- my concern with public schooling is only half the admin/teachers.

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's your opinion. Which explains your actions. Which you are welcome to both.

To be clear -- if you care -- my concern with public schooling is only half the admin/teachers.

And the other half is?

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And the other half is?

General wickedness of the world, fellow students, etc.

Oh...and social media.

Edited September 21, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JoCa]

To whit about school and teaching:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/21/patriotic-parent-balks-at-teachers-gender-neutral-declaration-independence.html

Mesa, Arizona.  Now how are you going to fight against this?  Be in class with your child every day, all day long? Tell your child, "let me know if they start using gender neutral pronouns"-they wouldn't know what you are talking about.

[Vort]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And it's quite insulting to imply that I would support crossing a road that kills children daily just because mine didn't.  Extremism is bad and it is wise to avoid it.

I believe you're misinterpreting what he did, anatess. He was responding narrowly to an element of what you had said; as he wrote, "the outcome of the children isn't the point."

TFP set up a fictitious, obviously staged situation where a traditional method of doing a task had gotten progressively more dangerous. A non-traditional method had been developed that, while still potentially dangerous, was safer when used correctly than the traditional method. He then stated that even if there existed carefully trained children who managed to complete the task safely using the more dangerous method and poorly trained children who failed to complete the task using the new method, that would not prove that the old method was somehow "better" than the new method.

I thought the metaphor actually worked quite well. You may or may not agree with the application -- that is, you may argue that sending your children to public school is not the "progressively more dangerous traditional method" and homeschooling not the "safer non-traditional method" -- but I thought his point came through. The comparative outcome of any two randomly chosen students can't reliably be used to gauge the overall effectiveness vs. danger of the two methods.

[Vort]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And like I said, not all public schools in the United States of America have risks so high that it overshadows the risks of non-public school teaching or a child's community in general.

What are the risks you see in homeschooling and in public schooling?

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I believe you're misinterpreting what he did, anatess. He was responding narrowly to an element of what you had said; as he wrote, "the outcome of the children isn't the point."

TFP set up a fictitious, obviously staged situation where a traditional method of doing a task had gotten progressively more dangerous. A non-traditional method had been developed that, while still potentially dangerous, was safer when used correctly than the traditional method. He then stated that even if there existed carefully trained children who managed to complete the task safely using the more dangerous method and poorly trained children who failed to complete the task using the new method, that would not prove that the old method was somehow "better" than the new method.

I thought the metaphor actually worked quite well. You may or may not agree with the application -- that is, you may argue that sending your children to public school is not the "progressively more dangerous traditional method" and homeschooling not the "safer non-traditional method" -- but I thought his point came through. The comparative outcome of any two randomly chosen students can't reliably be used to gauge the overall effectiveness vs. danger of the two methods.

I read this 3 times and I still can't quite see the analogy as it pertains to the discussion on public schools as non insolent.  Of course the debate centers around my stance that is in opposition to TFP's that not all public schools are the "progressively more dangerous traditional method".   And this is why, for me, the analogy fails.  That would be a "duh" just by the fact that my kids are in public schools.  And this is what started this discussion.

Just to be clear - I'm not offended by insolence.  It is what it is.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I read this 3 times and I still can't quite see the analogy as it pertains to the discussion on public schools as non insolent.

As Vort, I feel, clearly explained, the point is simply that the outcome of the children doesn't prove a superior choice. It was not meant to imply that one path is superior to the other. That is a different matter, and we disagree, perhaps. But the analogy was not to prove the superior method, it was a direct response to your statement, "I will pit my children against yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday." I'm simply saying that even if your children kicked my children's collective butts it wouldn't prove that having children in public school is the right choice. 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

What are the risks you see in homeschooling and in public schooling?

Homeschooling:  

• Just like there are incompetent teachers who do not know that they are incompetent, there are also incompetent parents who do not know that they are incompetent.  The advantage of non-homeschooling is that there are more opportunities for oversight - from class parents to school administrators - that can detect the incompetence and make appropriate corrections.  It is my firm belief that homeschooling works best if it is child-led learning with the parents simply acting as facilitators to incite curiosity in all subject matters.  But not all parents know how to do this (or even traditional teaching methods) successfully.
• The risk for inadvertently creating a thought-bubble is greater in homeschooling where challenges to ideas have to be sought instead of organically present.  It is the natural inclination of parents to create ideological "safe spaces".
• Competition have to be sought instead of organically present.  It is my firm belief that competition makes stronger children.

Of course, all these are easy to overcome as long as the parent is cognizant of the risk and works to mitigate them.

Public schooling:

• The limitation of choice.  THIS IS ITS BIGGEST PROBLEM the way it is implemented in the USA.  Florida is actually doing a pretty good job with this.  Administrated homeschooling in Florida can be a public school choice.
• I'm gonna summarize this to - there is a great risk that the diversity will be too much for a young mind to handle especially in communities where the prevailing culture is drastically different from the home culture.
• Parents having limited control over the curriculum (especially if school choice is very limited).

Faith-based schooling:

• Works great to mitigate the risks of public schooling.  Its risk, of course, is if the faith the schooling is based on is harmful - like mosques preaching violent jihad.  Having parents teaching children violent jihad is one thing... having that teaching echoed by the school makes it even worse.

That's really all that comes to mind right now.