Hi darkshadow,
I dont at all wish to be offensive, nor am I saying that you are teaching your children to be stupid. Dumbing down is a general trend on a massive scale and I do not believe that any parent consciously works for their children to reach less than their best potential. I think we agree a little more than it may have seemed, and you have certainly misread me in taking my comments as an attempt to tear down your children.
Some possible misunderstandings that may remain -
I dont need to have lived for thousands of years to know what happened thousands of years ago. I know what oral tradition is, I know when the printing press brought about large-scale reading, and what was transmitted and how it was transmitted is sufficiently well-documented that I can claim to know what life was like and what academic standards were before the modern age.
Every culture in the world has used different methods of teaching there children. Some cultures were "smarter" then others, creating an alphabet, tools, and the such. The poor in a lot of those cultures did not have any other method of teaching but by the oral tradition. I must say that your can not be well documented enough to make a claim as to know how every culture taught its people. Especially when we are making new discoveries of the past every day. I am not saying that the traditional ways are wrong, all I have ever said, is times change. Whether that is good or bad depends on its people. We can take the changes life brings and make them beneficial to God, or not.
On traditional ways vs modern, technological ways, I agree that we should use the best tools at our disposal. But I do mean the best, and not the mediocre. Are you offering a serious argument that video and computer is superior in development of the imagination to reading? (I dont really think so and we may agree it just seems like your statements could lead to that conclusion)
The most impressive thing on the entire earth to me is a child's imagination. They can entertain themselves for hours with just a stick. I encourage my children to read, and in my 6 year old's case to play his video games. Both stimulate is brain. His video games he plays are on a V-Smile system that has educational games for it. He has learned to count and read not from the games, nor me, nor my wife, nor his brother, nor school, but from them, me, my wife, his brother, and school. Videos are not better in any way then the imagination of a child, but after watching one of the VT videos, my son was outside playing, with a stick, and was David fighting the Giant Goliath. Now could this same result happened from me reading the story to him? Possibly, but did it hurt him in his beliefs of God, and Christ? No, he was out there still saying, "I can beat you, because God will help me."
I am NOT putting myself as judge and juror
I am saying what is better and what is worse. This is not to be taken as forbidding the use of things like VT, but merely a recognition of their inferiority to the original stories (regarding Biblical adaptations). Now vegetables have been used to tell worthwhile childrens tales before Chippolino by Gianni Rodari, for example but not retelling of Biblical tales. You might like this little Russian (Soviet childrens classic) animation just so you get that I am not engaged in a universal condemnation of fantasy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJOVJzXkKs
You do put yourself as the judge, although I seriously do not believe you mean to, when you tell others they are wrong and you are right about how to teach there children. No one is saying that the VT series is better then the Biblical stories, because they are not. They are however, written in a form that young children can comprehend better. No different then the traslation of the Bible from Aramaic and Greek to English. Would you rather take the years of schooling to study Aramaic to read the stories, because guess what some parts of the stories are lost in translation. Look at Proverbs in the original there are areas that are quite humorous, except that they do not translate into English that way. When I read from the bible to my son, or now when he reads to me, I do not read him the KJ version. Why? Because he would look at me like, "What language are you speaking dad"? I read him the NIV, with words he can understand. Do I read him to him that David cut Goliaths head off with his own sword? No, because I do not want to be up with him all night. Do I have to worry about him having nightmares about a little asparagus hitting a Giant Pickle with a rock from a sling. No, and he still understands that God is there to help him. That he cares about him and loves him. (His words not mine by the way.) Was the video a better teacher? NO! No one teaches are kids better then us. Can it help us teach them? Avsolutely!
Its just an aside, but the Pharisees did not have Christ killed for introducing new concepts, but for challenging their authority and power over, and hypocrisy before their people.
He was introducing new concepts that went against there tradition. What they interpeted to be going against the Laws of Moses. He brought the concept that salvation is not obtained through the Law, but by the Grace of God though faith in him and in Christ. The apostles were persecuted for the same. This is a different discussion and not for here.
Yes, it is a war. But I am reminded of Enemy at the Gates, where half of the soldiers are sent into the city to fight with only a handful of bullets and told to follow a man with a gun, and when he is shot, to pick up the gun. There are ways and ways to fight a war. Some are better. Some are worse. Some may be necessary at some point, but extremely wasteful. Some may just plain be wasteful. My question is not whether VT is an effort to do good it is, unquestionably but whether it is as good or effective as traditional/classical education. It may well be a more effective approach to kids who have been McDonaldized, but at least it is intellectually honest to admit that, speaking generally, our kids are shortchanged compared to kids raised 100-200 years ago. Today our kids go through an astonishing 13 years of public school and are only qualified to work at McDonalds after all that (a slight exaggeration to make a point).Kids 100 years ago got 6-10 years of schooling, if that, and knew more and could do more. Frederick Douglass taught himself with no TV, no school, no teachers, no nuffin, and Id like to see our schooled kids today write an autobiography like his (for one example out of 1,000 or more readily available).
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23/23-h/23-h.htm
I do agree that our children are short changed in some areas today, but not when it comes to intellengence. Those that received 6 to 10 years of schooling were in a better class in society, unlike now all children, at least in the US, are allowed the same schooling opportunities, until college. 100 years ago, if you had the flu, you could die from it, now its here take this you'll be better in a couple days. An airplane what was that? Automoblies what are you talking about? We have made strides in are technology through the education of our children. You say that "today our kids go through an astonishing 13 years of public school and are only qualified to work at McDonalds after all that." That is a huge exageation, and you are leaving out a huge factor there that being the parents. If the parents think education is stupid, then the child will think the same. If you took a child from 100 years ago and put them in the world today they would not know what to do. If you took a child from now and put them in a place 100 years ago they would survive and make things better. How do I say this, because time has shown that to be true. You use Fredrick Douglas as an example an his autobiography, someone who was a great man and did a lot for the blacks of that era, but you compare him to a child's autobiography. Fredrick Douglas was taught how to read and write by children his own age that were educated. Therefore educating him, and making that part of there own story. I am not taking away from any of his accomplishments, but I am saying he had some, not much, but some education. He did knew how to write, and read some, the same amount as many of the people of that time did, and they went on to do great things too. Just as those who were well educated went on to do great things.
I do agree that it is fine to use modern tools as long as they dont replace the good old ones. I am objecting to their replacement and an inability of children to take in the traditional forms.
Hopefully you see that I am not engaging in personal attacks. My apologies for my carelessness in my self-expression!
On this I agree 100% and is really is what I've been saying all along, which makes we now think maybe we really are more on the same page as previously thought. I would never want to see reading, imagination, and other traditional tools removed. If you think about it without them you have none of the others. I believe that both have there place and need to be used together to teach a child the values, morals, and correct understanding of our Lord. I also believe that you can not just use one method of teaching a child. Whether that is a good or bad is up to the individual. I beleive that not using other means but one can and does limit a childs possible understanding of a concept. God, thankfully made us all different, and therefore we all learn differently. Some can read a story once and know every detail of it, some have to read it several times. Some can see something and understand it, some have to hear it explained. Some children can memorize a spelling word by sight, some by sight and hearing it pronounced. I guess what I am saying in essence is what has been proven. The more sences involvend in learning the more likely a person is to understand and hold on to a concept.
