No no we cant have this !

[Digital_Trucker]

Good points, Hap. I wonder, too, if the mother will not be able to stay at home now that they are divorced. It would be extremely difficult to home school the children while working a full time job.

But, as you say, we should wait until we know the "rest of the story" before we jump off the deep end.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well I do know a bit about the way they do Child Support here. It is horribly unfair. I got custody of my son nearly 2 years ago, and his mother has been "in school" for the last 5 - online only. During the 3 years she had custody, and when I recieved custody - she continued to claim her schooling made it impossible for her to work. Since I worked, and she didn't, the CS was calculated for me to have full "responsibility" share wise regarding the moneys needed to keep him sheltered, fed etc. Thus my CS was initially computed to be around 50% of my income. Needless to say that was... exorbitant in the extreme. It finally was set at the highest % allowed by law.

Now that I have custody, because I have remained employed and stable, while she has continued to pursue her "education", her total child support due is the state minimum - $50 a month. To date, I haven't recieved a dime. The amount was also set due to the fact she has other minor children that she is responsible for.

So she sits at home, collects welfare and food stamps from the state for herself and her other kids, sends her now husband out to work when he can find it (at least he tries and is willing), and whines about how life is unfair. 5 years later she is supposed to finally get her 2 year degree, but of course she plans on "continuing her education" instead of actually going out and becoming productive. Not to mention she gets to apply for all kinds of federal and state "grants" for her "education".

***Yes I know - I really made horrible choices when I was much younger....***

Because this woman has 3 children, and if she did not work during the marriage, if the guy has a decent job its very likely his CS amount will be rather high. She can claim no skills, and thus have her responsibility totally negated. She may have to get a job, depending on that amount. It is one of the true inequities of the system in place here, how they figure the numbers.

And Tribesman - once again you show your ..... blissfulness. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the sun revolves around the earth. But of course - you ignoring fact (or making up fake ones) shouldn't suprise anyone...

Really ?
If that were true then the church would have severe trouble finding scripture to back up the geocentrist view then.
So in famous heresy cases concerning heliocentric views was the passages of scripture the church used from the bible or some other book?
If someone was found to be guilty of saying things that were contrary to Holy Scripture would that Holy Scripture be the bible or some other book ?

You really make it too easy to rip apart your posts Haplo .

[Skybird]

However, not going deep into the intricacies of divorces, I just point out that it is a valid point that homescholling is only acceptable if it gives children the same level of practical competence regarding basic skills (math, reading, writing) and scientific education like the regular school curriculum. Where there is a risk of sectarianism and religious dogma putting the kids' future at risk by replacing the regular curriculum with ideologc fantasizing and sectarian brainwashing, it is unacceptable and the state as I understand him has the obligation the protect the children from their irresponsible parents, like the state also would move the children out of a family where sexual abuse is a risk or drug threatens their immediate basic wellbeing and threatens their chances for their life's future as well.

I am not against homeschooling in principal, but against the abuse of it. I also want the obligation that homeschooled children must face the same exams and qualifications (supervisied by state's authority) like children in ordinary schools. Only on this basis, any form of diplomas, notes etc make sense. Else problem in the future are preprogrammed.

Children are the weakest, the most vulnerable, the most dependant factor in the social formula. Their interest and future perspective must be understood to be the top priority in any cases of disputes, whether it be about homeschooling or divorce. Even ideologic drives of parents have to step back here. Children's wellbeing rules first (at least that's how it should be in court decisions - if it really is always like this, is something different).

[Frame57]

You are right. We do not the details about it. The Judaic culture never used the scriptures to replace conventional education. You are right again the bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth. This notion and many other erroneous ones arose in the dark ages along with a myriad of other superstitions and poor theological references. In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it. Yet in Isaiah 40:22 and in Job 26:7 We see the earth as being a circle (Chugh) in hebrew which means "sphere". And Job states it is suspended by nothing. Pretty accurate I would say. If I were to have home schooled kids I would have to make clear distinctions between what is faith based and what is not. Kids obviously are not going to learn Algebra from the bible. But they certainly can learn about morals in society that are perfectly applicable.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Frame57

In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it.

Actually that's not true either. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the diameter of the Earth in the second century B.C., and Claudius Ptolemaeus, or Ptolemy, had done further calculations not much after that. Columbus' chief opponent didn't believe the Earth was flat, but that it was much larger than Columbus himself claimed. It turned out that he was right and old Cristoforo Columbo was wrong.

The belief that they thought the Earth was flat is an invention of Washington Irving.

[Platapus]

I have one question about home-schooling?

I can understand and appreciate the ability of a trained parent, using approved curricula, being able to teach their kid the "three R's".

However, I would like to know how about the child's social education when they are home schooled?

Even kids in private schools are exposed to other kids (some nice and some not so nice) and instructors (also some nice and some not so nice). They have to learn how do deal with interacting with different people.

To me, learning how to deal with different people (people who may not have the same beliefs as you) is important. Learning how to deal with a bully; how do deal with an overly shy teammate; the inherent unfairness of informal competitive sports. These are all very important life lessons.

How does a home-schooler teach those lessons?

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I have one question about home-schooling?

I can understand and appreciate the ability of a trained parent, using approved curricula, being able to teach their kid the "three R's".

However, I would like to know how about the child's social education when they are home schooled?

Even kids in private schools are exposed to other kids (some nice and some not so nice) and instructors (also some nice and some not so nice). They have to learn how do deal with interacting with different people.

To me, learning how to deal with different people (people who may not have the same beliefs as you) is important. Learning how to deal with a bully; how do deal with an overly shy teammate; the inherent unfairness of informal competitive sports. These are all very important life lessons.

How does a home-schooler teach those lessons?

I think it's a mistake to consider school as the only environment a person can learn those social lessons. I did far more socializing with the neighborhood kids in the woods and fields around my house and though after school social activities with the Boy Scouts, YMCA, Little League, etc, than i ever did sitting in a classroom quietly listening to a teachers lecture.

You are right again the bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth.

Wow another one .
So towards the end of the last century the Pope didn't apologise about the earlier insistance on geocentric views based on the bible then .
When he said the problem was the literal interpretation of Holy Scripture he meant Holy Scripture that isn't the bible:rotfl:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I have one question about home-schooling?

I can understand and appreciate the ability of a trained parent, using approved curricula, being able to teach their kid the "three R's".

However, I would like to know how about the child's social education when they are home schooled?

Even kids in private schools are exposed to other kids (some nice and some not so nice) and instructors (also some nice and some not so nice). They have to learn how do deal with interacting with different people.

To me, learning how to deal with different people (people who may not have the same beliefs as you) is important. Learning how to deal with a bully; how do deal with an overly shy teammate; the inherent unfairness of informal competitive sports. These are all very important life lessons.

How does a home-schooler teach those lessons?

My 5th school class I spent in Lübeck at a "Gymnasium" (we have a highschool-system in germany having three different kinds of highschools: Haupt-, Real- and Gymnasialschule) that back then, late 70s, still was an exclusive boy-school. even that already felt different than the mixed Gymnasium I went to after we had moved to Berlin. And I was definitely happier at the latter. The latter school is the reaosn why I look back at my schooltime with a friendly heart and good memories.

It's simply was two very different things.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You really make it too easy to rip apart your posts Haplo .

Aww poor tribesman - got your knickers in a wad because of me? How....... special. I would be flattered, but that would require I care. You might ought to consider that to successfully attack something, the attack must have teeth...

So far your attempts to debate have been filled with illogical insinuations, baseless tripe, ignorance of fact and absurd attempts at "reasoning".

Lets take this arguement. Your first come up and say that teaching based on the bible means teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. An assumption that is factually incorrect. Of course - had you been intellectually honest and done a bit of research, you would have known that. However, getting your facts straight hasn't exactly proven to be a strong point for ya. When your challenged on it - you start talking about what some dead guy who got elected to wear a pointy white hat had to say. Instead of either rising to the challenge - or saying "hmm ok yea that may have been a bad example of the point I was trying to convey" - your thought process starts wandering away, trying to find some other source - in this case another imperfect human, to somehow corroborate your faulty and uneducated perspective.

You go right ahead and "tear up" my posts there tribesman. If people are fooled by your ludicriosity, thats their problem. I point these weaknesses of yours out not to belittle you, but in the hope that one day you might actually look at some of your "logic leaps" and realize that its not about what you THINK is fact, its about what IS fact. Once you can base your arguments off of those - I might just take you a bit more seriously.

In the meantime - you might wanna do something about that wedgie you seem to have. :rotfl:

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Actually that's not true either. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the diameter of the Earth in the second century B.C., and Claudius Ptolemaeus, or Ptolemy, had done further calculations not much after that. Columbus' chief opponent didn't believe the Earth was flat, but that it was much larger than Columbus himself claimed. It turned out that he was right and old Cristoforo Columbo was wrong.

The belief that they thought the Earth was flat is an invention of Washington Irving.

So, you are saying no one thought the earth was flat? It was a common belief back then. Where in hell do you think the idea of "sailing of the edge of the world came from". Of course some obviously did get this by simply placing two sticks apart and calculating the shadow of the sun. But the idea was not mainstream by any stretch...

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Frame57

You are right again the bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth. This notion and many other erroneous ones arose in the dark ages along with a myriad of other superstitions and poor theological references.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

If your planet is immovable, then the sun must be the thing moving here, according to scripture that is.

The ironic thing is that Copernicus, who provided evidence of a geocentric system, was a devout Christian in a time when people who uttered such things were branded as blasphemers, traitors, and heretics by the Church.

Originally Posted by Frame57

In Columbus' day people of science and sea faring men stil thought the earth was flat and that you could fall off the edge of it.

Well actually, they didn't believe you would "fall off the edge". They believed that Earth had a solid skydome which protected us from the things outside of it. They did believe that there were great monsters in the oceans, though (somewhat true, if you consider all the gigantic things there are in the waters).

Here's a woodcut from the Middle Ages that basically displays what they thought perfectly:

Originally Posted by Frame57

Yet in Isaiah 40:22 and in Job 26:7 We see the earth as being a circle (Chugh) in hebrew which means "sphere".

Here's what we know about this part: the Jews adopted most of the old Babylonian theological beliefs on Earth and science. The Babylonians believed that Earth was a flat discus plane-like object that existed with a dome covering it (not referred to as a skydome, however). The Hebrew word "chugh" can mean both "circle" and "sphere", so while it could mean "sphere", they believed what the Babylonians did, which was quite the contrary (if anything, it would be a half sphere since you've got the flat ground and the solid dome). If the author wanted to say Earth is a sphere, why not use the word "dur"? It means "ball" in Hebrew, and is a hell of a lot closer (by definition) than "chugh".

Please note the "skydome" was referred to as "The Firmament" by the Babylonians and Jews, and this is where they believed that their gods dwelled.

Originally Posted by Frame57

And Job states it is suspended by nothing.

I don't know about that (do you have a specific verse?), but I do know that the Babylonians and old Jews also believed that Earth stood on a fixed set of pillars.

Originally Posted by Frame57

Pretty accurate I would say.

As far as the spherical Earth is concerned, no, it's not accurate. The Job verse I won't fully comment on since I don't know precisely what he said (but as I did point out, the old Jews adopted the Babylonian beliefs, which said that Earth was fixed on a set of pillars).

Originally Posted by Frame57

If I were to have home schooled kids I would have to make clear distinctions between what is faith based and what is not.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Frame57

Kids obviously are not going to learn Algebra from the bible.

That's for true.

Originally Posted by Frame57

But they certainly can learn about morals in society that are perfectly applicable.

I would have to dispute that. The Bible has got some moral and good teachings, but it's got a lot of immoral things, too, such as saying it's alright to own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46; NLT), it's acceptable to stone rape victims (Deuteronomy 22:-24), and it's also acceptable to beat children who are viewed as fools (Proverbs 22:15). It's also got a lot of brutal deaths and violence in it.

Definitely a no-no for young kids, but I would say a 14 or 15-year-old home-schooled kid could handle it.

Thus, per that article, an agreement EXISTED.

Bloody hell , you base your whole position on a newspaper article .

#1 Israel isn't going to negotiate with terrorists directly, so everyone sitting down and having a nice chat, tea and crumpets to figure out the wording of an agreement just ain't going to happen. Nor did it.

Errrr... thats why they use intermediaries , you know other people to try and broker deal between themselves and other parties .

#2 Hamas is not a government, thus they have no recognized diplomat authorized to sign any such agreement if it existed. They are a terrorist organization, and thus have no interest in signing a document that - as the above noted - they had no interest in complying with.

Hamas is the elected government , the elected governement is recognised with certain powers for the purposes of negotiation and international representation(plus internal matters) .

#3 Egypt acted as a go between and got both sides to agree to stop shooting and killing each other. Egypt stated clearly that both sides agreed to the ceasefire, and neither side disputed it. In fact, again, had you read the links I posted, a leader of Hamas first "embraced" the ceasefire. A week later he was inciting its violation. This further proved the point I was making - you can't trust terrorists to abide by any agreement.

Just so wrong , Israel made no agreement and did not agree to the terms Hamas put forward through Egypt . That is why there was no ceasfire agreement , just unilateral decalarations . Its kinda like the current situation where there are two ceasefires decalred , both unilateral declarations .
And in ongoing negotiations to attempt an agreed ceasfire between both parties Egypt complains it is getting stabbed in the back by Israel every time they make any progress and Israeli negotitors are having to resign because they complain that their own government changes all the proposed terms any time they get close to achieving a deal .
And as for proving the point about dealing with terrorists to get them to abide by a deal , the last century gives hundreds of examples that prove you ignorant of facts . A prime example would be once again the usual outrage in the German media with the early release of yet another RAF terrorist , that is part of the deal the German government made with the terrorists , early release in exchange for stopping killing people .

Hey Stealth Hunter , those passages that were used to "prove" that the heliocentric theory was contrary to Holy Scripture , would they be from the bible or some other Holy Scripture ?

[CaptainHaplo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7462554.stm

"Speaking on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the truce would be fragile and could be short-lived."

"Hamas's leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, said the truce would "bring stability to Israel if they commit themselves to it"."

Yea your right - the Prime minister of Israel and the leader of Hamas in Gaza both say there is an agreed truce - How is that unilateral???

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/wo...ideast.html?hp

"The prime minister and defense minister of Israel have agreed to an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire with Hamas for the Gaza area starting Thursday, Israel Radio reported on Wednesday morning."

"Mahmoud Zahar, a leader of Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, confirmed at a news conference there on Tuesday evening that a truce was about to come into effect and that it would last for six months.

A senior Israeli defense ministry official, Amos Gilad, traveled to Cairo on Tuesday night to receive final clarifications from the Egyptians. On his return Wednesday morning, he told Israel Radio that an understanding had been achieved.
Maintaining a note of caution, Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel said on Tuesday that it was "difficult to determine how long" an agreement would last."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55362

"JERUSALEM – A truce Hamas made with Israel in Gaza last November is "officially over," Hamas leaders told WND today, threatening to send suicide bombers into Tel Aviv if the Jewish state retaliates for a major attack carried out this morning. "

Ok the leaders both announce it - then one party "OFFICIALLY' ends the agreement - but I guess there wasnt one.

And no - Hamas is a terrorist organization - and while they did win SOME political power in an election - their actions of forcibly securing Gaza shows they are no government - but a bunch of thugs.

My position remains rooted in the statements of leaders in the know. So I guess now your going to dispute leaders of both sides who say they had an agreement? Lemme guess - you know better than they do?

I fully expect some lame argument from you about this - but the folks here can decide for themselves. I suspect what really has occured is that you read somewhere about a unilateral decision - it being a different date in this issue - and now have yourself backed into a corner and are simply too proud to admit you made a mistake. Either way - not my problem. The facts are above - where are yours to refute the words of the Isreali Prime Minister or multiple Hamas leaders being quoted? Oh thats right - you dont have any..... :rotfl:

So far I have provided multiple sources that say I am right. You can't provide any that disputes me. I know it works different in little tribesmanworld - but in the big grown up world of reality - facts exist.