Simply Keeping Home? Have we discussed this yet?

[Koala]

Her blog finally cemented a a vague notion that had been floating around in my head. These fundy types are very invested in public schools having no redeeming value whatsoever. They'll rewrite their own biographies so that public schools are cast in the worst light possible. It's not enough that public schools aren't "good enough" for their kids. They must be cesspools for every kid. I wonder why they're so emotionally invested in this piece of fiction.

I am suspicious of anyone who promotes the education choices they've made for their children as "the ONLY viable way". I honestly think that there are pros and cons to whatever you do.

[Burris]

I just took a quick peek at the blog and some of the content is certainly snarktastic, to say the least. Where her curricula are concerned, however, she's not cheating the younger child out of math. She has two sons, the younger of whom she describes as being weak in reading and penmanship. That may be why his curriculum is heavy on language arts right now, with no real emphasis on math. (I'm not defending such imbalance, mind you, but just offering a potential explanation for it.)

The SKH blogger, like so many of her fellow-travellers, is anti-intellectual to the point where she's afraid to send her sons away to trade school but instead wants them to take any post secondary studies at home. (A variation of the might work with the younger, who wants to be a mechanic; but for the older, who wants to be a graphic artist, that could hobble any hope he has of a career – unless he's really, really good and really, really committed to studying the craft.)

SKH's discussion of the Bible is where I became frustrated. The admixture of anti-intellectualism and an unearned sense of superior understanding is so noxious. (Yeah, sure; people might accuse me of the latter, although it's not quite true, but God forbid I should ever be the former.)

She writes...

In most cases when we say, "It is difficult to understand" what we mean is, "It is difficult to believe". But we are not left to our own imagination to determine meaning.

When Isaiah or Zechariah have already employed identical terminology, with an interpretation by themselves or another prophet, we need search no further. It sometimes takes a little thumb work (turning the pages of a Bible or concordance), but the "Scripture with Scripture" method is superior to all "scholarship" in understanding Scripture. The layman need not be intimidated.

With a complete concordance and a King James Bible, you are on the road to a great blessing. The modern commercial translations have destroyed the cross references through text alterations.

Biblical authors borrow heavily from each other, and their work is layered in such a way that careful reading of the surviving manuscript portions can reveal which texts are oldest and track the evolution of a repeated sayings through multiple iterations.

In other words, newer Biblical authors relied on older ones for certain commentary: The matching text portions weren't developed independently of one another; they were quoted again and again by subsequent prophets down through the generations, each hoping to invoke the past in service to a different theological or political end. In short, to best understand what a certain text means, read the text around it first. Try to understand the use of words within their historical contexts. That's a more accurate way to read than simply comparing two versions of a text that appear 500 years apart and arguing they both mean exactly the same thing merely because, out of context, one is a repetition of another.

Oh, but screw all that busy-work. Applying experience, reason, and historical understanding to scriptural reading is merely a trick of the devil or some such bullshit. These women have it all figured out, and it's just so darned easy even a girl could do it.

When people start treating the Bible is a single book with a single origin, and as an infallible text, we end up with nonsense like this:

Don't read symbolism into Scripture where none exists. When Scripture says "a day" it literally means "a day". There are many doctrines which seek to complicate, allegorize and symbolize Scripture. They do this apart from faith and apart from the Holy Spirit. This is a decieving practice and one that leads others away from the truth.

...and...

I am studying the book of Revelations and it is a very literal book. Only those ignorant of Old Testament prophecy and its fulfillment stumble over its meaning. But the prophecies in Revelation are as literal as are the prophecies of Exodus. The Gospel of John has more symbolism than does Revelation.

So there you have it: Revelation is meant to be taken literally.

[TXDuck]

I am suspicious of anyone who promotes the education choices they've made for their children as "the ONLY viable way". I honestly think that there are pros and cons to whatever you do.

Agreed in spades. But they refuse to see any pros to a public or even Christian school education and there are apparently no cons to homeschooling. It's one of the odd things about them, especially since the Bible doesn't really mention secular education much at all.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Does she explain how you define a "day" prior to the creation of the sun?

[emmiedahl]

Some public schools use Saxon, or at least they used to. It is considered a very comprehensive program.

I started with it as a homeschooling mom, but it is boring as can be. Drills, drills, drills. I quickly switched to Math-U-See for the younger ones and Teaching Textbooks for the older boy. If you have very disciplined children, Saxon could be great... but we are all easily bored in my home and I was tired of arguing over worksheets every day. There were no pictures, just sheets full of problems.

[clibbyjo]

Some public schools use Saxon, or at least they used to. It is considered a very comprehensive program.

I started with it as a homeschooling mom, but it is boring as can be. Drills, drills, drills. I quickly switched to Math-U-See for the younger ones and Teaching Textbooks for the older boy. If you have very disciplined children, Saxon could be great... but we are all easily bored in my home and I was tired of arguing over worksheets every day. There were no pictures, just sheets full of problems.

LOL, that is exactly why I switched too. We did same order you did: math u see then TT. Now just TT.

[clarinetpower]

Maybe the 8th grader doesn't need science because with Creationist Science, you can learn all you need to know in about 2 minutes. "God Did It! The end." :eyeroll:

[mockingbird]

Agreed in spades. But they refuse to see any pros to a public or even Christian school education and there are apparently no cons to homeschooling. It's one of the odd things about them, especially since the Bible doesn't really mention secular education much at all.

I feel like education is a very charged topic in general, even with non-fundies. I've been in a lot of discussions where people refuse to see the positives about the other side and the cons of their own (whether they are debating private/public/homeschool or some other educational issue) and are just ruled by their own experience.

I had someone get mad at me once because I said I enjoyed high school, because SHE hadn't so high school sucked for EVERYONE and if I said differently, obviously I was a) not smart, b) had had a boyfriend, and c) was popular and probably a bully. Um, 0 for 3. :roll: (At least I don't think I was a bully, lol, I wasn't popular though.) I don't get what it is about education/school that just blindsides people so much that they can't fathom anyone else experiencing something differently than they did. News flash, every school and every person is different. ETA: This person is normally pretty liberal, definitely not a fundy.

[Olivia]

When a woman marries, she takes her husband's name - not the other way around - indicating the joining of her life to his. Her identity is enveloped in her beloved husband.

Erm, that's not what it indicated when I took my husband's name. It indicated I was trading my unwieldy Eastern European name for his lovely Anglo-Saxon name that sounds so much better with my first name. Simple as that. I would have kept my own last name if his had not been prettier. :p