Quote:
Originally Posted by Derbonic  Quote:
Originally Posted by greywolf90 Quote:
Originally Posted by romansh So is it OK to home school one's kids and teach them as literal fact that:
1) Mankind is only 4000 y old and wave off all the evidence to the contrary?
2) The earth was once completely flooded and wave off the evidence to the contrary?
3) Various miracles actually happened, including: ascending into heaven, water into wine, walking on water, healing by the laying of hands, feeding multitudes with a few fishes and loaves, parting the Red Sea, baby Jesus talking. Waving off our experience to the contrary?
4) A religious text is fact?
I'm glad my parents did not do that to me!
The Santa and tooth fairy abuse did eventually stop... my teeth eventually fell out and after awhile I was expected to provide presents for others. | is it not ok to teach your kids what you believe to be the truth? | It is ok to teach your kids what you BELIEVE to be the truth.
I dont think its ok for you to teach youre kids that it IS the truth when you only believe it and dont know it. |
as agnostics, that would be our oppinion, but for a theist, isn't the purpose of having faith that they do not have any doubts that what they believe is the truth? so in their minds, they "know" there is a god, they "know" the bible/koran/torah is the word of god, etc. in fact for many, this is all simple obvious truth.
on a somewhat related topic to romansh's points on homeschooling their kids, i think i would consider it wrong if they did teach them things that go against what science does know, such as evolution being false. i have been following a few evolution/creationist debates and visited a few websites for both sides. i don't mind if someone chooses to believe in an ID, but i do mind when they try getting others to agree with them by lies. these are some of the things i've seen stated on creationist sites: "scientists have disproven evolution" "we have proven natural selection is false" "their are no transitional links in the fossil record" (in the debates, i've seen many evolutionists happily provide examples of transitional links, yet the creationists continue to bring up this argument) "the transitional links discovered have all been proven false"... it just goes on and on. anyways, i apologize if this seems off topic, but it was just something i felt like posting, and i think it is relative to our discussion.