My husband and I were both public schooled.
Because of what we learned in public schools, we have chosen to homeschool for now.

If the public system has equiped you to homeschool competently, it's done pretty well.  If not, ....

As far as not being qualified to teach certain subjects.....
I didn't know how to potty train a child until I actually had to. We got through potty training between the ages of 2 and 3 so I think we can get through just about anything else.

Which show's how much you know.

Good teachers know how to find the information to teach the pupils in which they've been given.[/color]

If you are able to devote more time to learning to teach each topic than the kids need to spend learning it, then fine.  It's not about information, its about genuinely understanding the concepts, the process, how to teach those, and (maybe most of all) understanding what misconceptions are likely to arise, how to avoid them, diagnose and correct them.  Learning the content that you have to teach is the trivial bit.

Neo - the following link will take you to a fairly good 'history' of public education.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/educationhomeschoolingorchildren/failureamepublic.shtml

Clearly written by a columnist, not an educator - it doesn't even touch on what the purpose of public education is.  Until you do that, talking about how well it does or does not  achieve that is meaningless.

In my opinion, 'public' education is largely (not completely, but largely) indoctrination into the liberal-humanist politically correct platform.  

What evidence do you have for this?

As such, they have invaded the home in that they are attempting to teach their versions of morality.  Morality is better taught in the home.  

Morality needs to be taught in both.
If it isn't taught at home, then schools can't completely make up for that.
If it's not taught at school then:
a:  there's no comonality of morals, and society isn't going to function very well
b:  (more importantly) those kids who aren't taught any moral standards at home (an increasing proportion it seems) are left without any moral framework
c:  kids need to be exposed to a decent moral framework (even if it's not exactly yours) all the time.  If they are going to be in school, then they are in a social environment and the what is and isn't appropriate will need to be talked about frequently.

I want my daughter learning math, english, geography, science and history.

More importantly she needs to learn how to think, how to learn, and how to interact in a social environment.

She doesn't need to know how to put a condom on a cucumber,

What evidence do you have that she would spend more than a miniscule about of time on this sort of thing?   And the fact is, a fair number of the kids do need to know how to put one on.   Indeed, she might for any number of possible medical reasons.

Almost all hate threads.  Says it all, really.  

Ebia, you really do need to think through your posts before you write them. The point is that if it happened even ONCE, then their theory is not true. Jesus said; "No one can snatch them out of my hand." That's a true statement.

That's equally true of all baptism, not just infant baptism.

If someone is baptized as an infant and becomes an atheist, he therefore CANNOT have born again at baptism or Jesus would be a liar.

Or your interpretation of Jesus' words is wrong.

You assume that "cannot be snatched out of my hand" equals "cannot walk away from me".   This is clearly untrue.

While I can agree with Heidi in certain isolated instances...
Heidi, it would help your points if you didn't blanket your targets with "they".
The entire Church community is probably not that way.
Atleast not yet.

As to the use of the word for Heidi's point...it's not needed.
Heidi is presenting an opinion that is her(?) own about the general conduct of the Church and the belief strongly therein of the acceptance of the Church's (which ever it be in concern) cerminised(sp) dogmatic principle without any real desire to check it agains the Bible and your own interpitation of it.

Checking it is fine.  It's Heidi's assumption that, whenever the church's interpretation disagrees with hers, it's her interpretation that is automatically right and the church's that's wrong, that is (at best) deeply dangerous and amounts to setting herself up as infallible.

It's what I call "Limmings in Sheeps Cloathing".
Or "Pat-Answer People".

What's a limming?  Or did you mean lemming?  Either way, relying on your own interpretation  is no more evidence of critical thinking than relying on other peoples.  Heidi is just as much of a "pat answer" person as the worst person who just repeats what they have been taught without thinging about it.  It's just that Heidi's doctrine is unique to her.

I believe that something akin to this example is what Heidi was voicing with her(?) opinion.

The trouble is, Heidi things so much less deeply than the people she attacks.

Good post, Dustcry. In my opinion, the church has done more to lead people away from Christ, than toward Him. Most people in the church today do not know what a personal relationship with jesus Christ, and few care. All they care about is what thw CHURCH tells them. Unfortunately, they will only suffer the consequences when they die and then it will be too late. Jesus said the work of God is this; "to believe in the one he sent." Period. That is all you have to do is believe HIM. Not someone else's interpretation of Him, but Him alone. I don't even go to church because of all the false teachings! I listen to Jesus through the Holy Spirit which agrees with all of His words.

You're setting yourself up as infallible.  You haven't actually used the word itself, but you have, in effect, claimed to be infallible in your personal interpretation of the Bible.

That doesn't actually answer the question thought, does it?  It's just a long winded way of saying "we don't know".   Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but it's a valid question that God hasn't really given us any answer to.

I would disagree with your statement: It is not man's place to ever question the power, majesty, and purpose of Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe.   I think God can handle us questioning it quite a bit - the psalmist certainly did.

Not all of the above are mutually exclusive

HOWEVER what was so alarming to me is that Christ wasn't "resurrected"... he was left "dead"... which is a Catholic viewpoint (with Mel being catholic himself)

What's that supposed to mean?  Do you think Catholics don't believe in the resurrection or something?

I'm not sure why Mel didn't add this tidbit of fact to the movie

It's a movie, not the whole story.  That's why it's called the Passion of Christ - because it tells the Passion, not the whole thing.   To be complete it'd have to cover the whole thing from Incarnation to Pentecost and everything in between.    Gibson chose to highlight in detail one short but climatic event in the story to get people thinking (which it has certainly done).  Now it's up to the churches to catch people and tell them the rest of the story.

how many were converted over to Christ or just to Catholicism in general.  

Christianity is a subset of Catholicism?

[after]

But I know many, many people who were baptized aas infants who are now atheists.

That hits the nail right on the head.  Being baptized as an infant is an exercise in futility.  One must coherently choose Jesus Christ as Savior FIRST – baptism comes afterward.  

Acts 8:36-38
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may."
And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

These passages demonstrate that Baptism comes after faith - acceptance of the Lord as Savior.  An infant is unable to exercise that ablility.

That's one passage.  And it is an example of baptism coming after intellectual assent - it does not demonstrate that it's always that way around.

I was at a funeral at a Lutheran church yesterday nad was deeply saddened by what I hear from the Pastor. He said on the one hand that we are born again at baptism and that no one can come between oursleves and God. I most certainly agree with the last part of his statement which is referring to his true sheep. But I know many, many people who were baptized aas infants who are now atheists. Therefore is Jesus's true sheep listen to His voice, then the atheists who were once baptized are obvioulsy not his true sheep. I always knew that the Lutheran church taught that we are saved when we are baptized, but the fact that the pastor cannot see these contradictions is deeply troubling.

What makes you think he can't see the paradox (not contradiction) in it?  The Christian faith is full of paradoxes - the whole concept of Trinity is a stunning example.

Apart from that, adult baptism may reduce the number of such baptisms, but it certainly doesn't eliminate them.  To not baptise children denies them their place in the body of Christ, and He had pretty strong words to say to those who tried to stop little children coming to Him.

In addition, at the ende of the service, the pasor commedn the spirit of the dead person into heaven. I know for a fact that the dead person was an atheist! I guess according to the Lutheran and catholic churches, ALL of us are saved!

The Catholic, Lutheran and other churches would LIKE all to be saved.  To "commedn the spirit of the dead person into heaven [sic]" is to ask God to find a way to admit that person into heaven.  It doesn't say whether they will or will not be admitted.   If you don't want everyone to be admitted, then you are falling a heck of a long way short of the love that God demands of us.

It always hurts me when our Lord Jesus christ is given a backseat in the Christian church.

Just because Heidi doesn't understand what is going on, doesn't mean that Christ is being given a back seat.

I am simply correcting the doctrine of the catholic church when it says it is infallible and we should call the pope our Holy Father. Unfortunately, the catholics see that as an attack.

It's the way that you go about it that makes it an attack.

Like this:
 

They probably consider it blasphemous as well because they see the pope as their god.

The catholics I know rarely even mention the Pope.  He gets at most one mention during the average catholic mass, and that is a prayer for him.  And yet, despite all the evidence to the contrary you think you can see into their hearts and determine that he is their god.  

They certainly defend him like he is.

When you insist on making unsupported and untrue allegations, what do you expect them to do?

I do consider it blasphemous for so called "Christian leaders" to deliberately disobey Christ's words because it is indeed blasphemy to attack our Lord and Saviour.

Catholics aren't disobeying Christ's words: they disagree with about what those words are meant to mean.  Now, you think they are wrong in their interpretation, and that's a valid position to take, but you then attack them as disobeying when what your position actually demands is to engage in a genuine debate over whose interpretation is the correct one.  To do that you've got to stop firing the accusations and actually engage in some logical argument, something you seem singularly incapable of.

So what is your problem?

People who write absurd statements and call them proofs.

What do you believe?

That's a bit of an open question for a one line answer.

How do you suppose GOD would have wanted HIS word to spread?

By every means possible I'd imagine, including but not limited to, writing down that part which we call the Bible.

How are we to study HIS word?

For a highly literate society, having the bible written down is helpful.  It also helps preserve it uncorrupted over time (which is why people started to write it down in the first place), but it's not absolutely necessary to have it written down.  More to the point, the Bible is not end in itself - Christ is.  It's Christ we should seek to understand, not the Bible, and the Bible is a very important means to that, but not the only one.

Are you a believer? Or what?

Everyone believes something.  Care to be more specific?

Oh, btw, given up on your 'sevens' proof yet?

How can the story of this woman be told throughout the world without it been written down first?

What an absurdly 20th century question.  The same way everyone had heard it until Mark wrote it down - by word of mouth, of course.