Therefore, we can conclude that “Jesus” is not His name. The 1611 Bible referred to Him as “Iesous”, because there was no “j” in the English language at that time. It was added years later. His name would be closer to YAHUSHA.

I wish I had a cigar and a mirror:) I think you just described my twenties. I do have a bonnie wee bairn sleeping on my chest 🥰, whilst another is reading Wind in the Willows. So, nope, not nearly as noir as you had imagined 😉

Oh absolutely darling. Warn them all.

I am just using the terminology that the board contributors used. I have never considered the moon as a hoax, but now that you mention it…. I mean Enoch does describe the luminaries as a portal, so… Am I thinking too loud? I might look into it:))

Okay, so the topic touches your funny bone. Teaching physics is great (but not a credential for authority)! Belief in a moon landing touches spirituality. I don’t think the moon program itself is necessarily spiritual. Yeah, I guess we “beat” Russia. Wasn’t the rhetoric surrounding the moon thing like an appeal to nationalism? Why wouldn’t they? NASA has a claim to protect. Astronauts are employees, and are paid workers. Besides, who perceives an astronaut as glorious? Have you ever seen the video of Buzz punching the guy asking him if he really went to the moon? Maybe when people receive glory for something they didn’t do, they are more apt to be of poor character.

Okay, but again…semantics. Do you think that the government has never lied to the public? I am sincerely asking you that question. I am also not someone who is afraid of the government, or is paranoid, but accepts that “government” is here to steer the public (ship of state, yeah?) So, it seems natural to inspect it’s claims, IMO. Do you realize that Science (and the government) has perpetrated many, many hoaxes on the people. There was probably a time when one was pelted with ridiculous slurs like “Piltdown Man Denier”. Well, but the Piltdown Man was a hoax, and that nut job was….right.

Pretty comment, sounds good. Science (or the boundaries that people have put around it) absolutely have to do with faith. Science attempts to adjudicate the state of the natural by faithfully accepting the material, yet rejecting the supernatural. The Scientific Method (by which theories are measured) is an undeniable dismissal of the supernatural. Hence, faith. The SM must have faith that a supernatural possibility does not exist. Religion poses what questions that science has not attempted to answer? Let’s go elementary. Religion and Science have answered (through each its own perspective) the origins of life. So, yes, science has grappled with the same questions as religion, and that is the most basic question between the two. The existence of YAH/god has and still is being examined. We could use Kierkegaard as an example, who assumed that the SM could not prove, nor could it disprove the existence of “god”. I mean come on, surely you know better? As far as conflict between science and religion-well, hmm. I disagree with that assumption. Have you ever thought about why there are Laws of Nature in the first place? I am sure scientists are not so poorly in thought that that hasn’t been considered, right? That’s just one question, and now we have to dive into the supernatural. I will always see science and the supernatural as inextricable, and perhaps, a necessary juxtaposition:)

Yes, you could say that. I don’t think I was clear enough. My contention has to do with semantics. I don’t view it as a CT in the common sense, wherein the CT is treated as incredible. To be be completely fair, I don’t think I ever viewed it as a CT in any sense, but simply as information I could dump or explore. Nowadays, the language has changed, along with perception. Like, lies are lies, I wouldn’t process that as a conspiracy, just as non factual, or a fabrication. Anyway- You think the “evidence” has been debunked because when you do a google search, 99% of the pages consist of websites that “debunk” the moon “hoax”. I am sure that you feel validated in your belief because google surely makes you feel like you are right. Years ago, the internet landscape was absolutely different and interesting. The fact that you can’t really find an opposing opinion on the matter is a red flag. Google and YouTube have buried 95% of the information and voices that were around a decade ago. You could say that is a conspiracy, right? But that change in the internet I have witnessed first hand. I digress- Yes, I believe that many people are capable of lying. Abso- freaking-lutely. Furthermore, going to the moon sounds really neat, it does. I am not hellbent on proving my position one way or the other, I just don’t buy it. Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, this does touch into spirituality, on a few levels, religious views notwithstanding. If you really were to watch those old videos (not just of the moon landing, but there are many NASA vids from then and now), your spirit is gonna nudge you. You can either lie to yourself, or be willing to think outside of the square. I mean Queen Elizabeth could have been reptilian…:) Okay, okay, I am joking, of course.

Okay, but I was eye rolling and asking a rhetorical question at the same time. Ironically, this is a “science” (pseudo-science??) topic. I guess science is very sometime-y. Like sometime-y faith is good, sometime-y faith is bad (if you are talking about the existence of *gasp* God/Creator/Yah). Evolution- “observable” so good to go Creator-not “observable” so bad…no good. Science. It’s ways are not fixed?

I didn’t say I only believe in what I personally witness and understand. What we see and experience does hold some weight, surely you would agree? I think that really your question/point is hyperbolic. Belief in a Creator isn’t comparable to the Moon Hoax, if you will. Acknowledgement of a higher power is an acceptance of the supernatural. Pondering whether or not folks landed on the moon is to accept what is material, and to deal with that accordingly. So, I am not really sure what your point is?

Really? If you say that aliens are real, and I call you silly, then I have used a descriptive term. To label you as silly is dismissive of your assertion that aliens are real. There are two groups of thinkers as it pertains to Conspiracy Theories. Generalists are of the mindset that any CT is of little credibility, and due to this mindset, are easy to dismiss the validity of the “conspiracy theory”. Particularists do not dismiss the claim because it has been termed “conspiracy theory”, but choose to consider the CT, as they would any other theory, through research. In fact, outside of philosophy (yep, we can philosophize about the Conspiracy Theory in general), the common (present) usage of CT has a negative connotation. Simply, reread the board and you can see that clearly. However, the moon landing isn’t a CT, if I may opine. It certainly wasn’t in 1969. Many folks thought it was absurd then, too (even more than now!).

Ah, well. I guess faith is ubiquitous, regardless…and unavoidable.

Isn’t the basis of science…observation?

Yes. Myself. Have any of you actually watched the original footage? It is actually comical. When I was a kid (in the 90’s), I hated the old 60’s Sci-Fi films that my dad would watch. They looked so fake. No one had to tell me they were fake, my mind just recognized it. The moon landing footage should be a red flag to anyone living now, for sure. It looks ridiculous. Someone else made a great point about the fact that no one in this room, if you will, has any real evidence to prove or refute the claim of a “moon landing”. One has to have faith in a thing unseen. I also don’t believe in UFOs. Didn’t the House discuss UFOs just recently? Yes, indeed it did. But people who question or down-right don’t believe in a “moon landing” are lacking in intelligence, or are conspiracy theorists (such a dismissive term)?! The government also supports the existence of UFOs. I don’t. The government says it went to the moon. I don’t think so. You can think me a buffoon for not believing in aliens. I am more interested in why people feel so afraid to challenge the status quo, especially regarding events that one has not experienced or witnessed, than debating science fact or fiction. What I have seen on this thread is that groupthink never leads to true thought, but rather some form of degradation to the disagreeing party. I mean, most commenters have questioned the intelligence of the people who question the powers that be, or information that has been spoon fed to people. Questions and a search for answers…truth…thought…aren’t these the tools of the intelligentsia? Isn’t it passé to accept canned information?

We use Zum (Frankincense and Myrrh). Smells great, clean ingredients. However, the scent isn’t going to be as loud as regular laundry detergents.

Yes, YouTube is perfect for knitting (and crochet). I learned from Sheep and Stitch and VeryPink Knits (exceptionally thorough and knowledgeable). My advice would be to stick with someone who knits in the style that is easier for you, or at least in the style you want to learn. For example, I was a thrower when I first learned knitting, and quickly became a flicker. You may jive better with continental style knitting, who knows? However, as a beginner, it will be easier for you to learn if you can easily follow the knitting style of the person teaching in the video. Although, I learned to knit continental (not my favorite), I found it hard to follow instructions in this style, in the beginning. I have yet to learn crochet, but it is next on my list😊

A quarter of Americans can trace their wealth (and inheritance thereof) to land ownership received from the Homestead Act under Lincoln. Not only did that one piece of legislation create immense wealth (for the Europeans), it also, kinda left out the “freed” slaves. So no wealth building there. And well, no 40 acres and a mule either. We still need to consider that by that redistribution of wealth via land ownership, another group was also, umm, massacred, which would be the Native Americans. So much wealth is passed on through generations, and yes, that is felt by people today. Logically, land/money/business/etc/etc that was stolen from a people, will be felt 100 years later. Let alone, hundreds of years before that. And I haven’t even mentioned Black Wall Street, yet. The damage was being done well before then. What you are saying is that black folks being compensated for theft upon theft, at the hands of the European, would just be a silly handout (because you have, of course, never benefited from any such thing *wink wink*) to a generation of people who can’t/shouldn’t feel the effects of what their people have been subject to for several generations?

The most asinine thing I have read today….. Surely, you jest?

Thank you, I absolutely forgot about Lantern English! I think we will give that a try this year, too. Besides, I think it may be nice to have another person doing the critique/giving feedback, as opposed to doing it myself. They get so tender over mom’s (or dad’s) critique of their writing:)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will absolutely look into Wordsmith Apprentice. I have looked into that one before. My son can write paragraphs and even essays, but needs a lot of oversight. He also loves silliness in curriculum. So yes, I will look deeper into that one. Thank you!

If you only had one year to teach essay writing to a 5th grader, what curriculum would you use? We did essay writing in 4th grade, but my rising 5th grader still needs improvement (he is a reluctant writer who would rather be drawing🥴). We are also doing ISEE test practice this year as well (which is why he needs a boost to his essay writing ability). We use MCT, but I don’t have the time this year for vague essay instruction. We love MCT, but I am looking for something that is more straightforward and explicit (old-school?) in teaching essay writing. My eldest is a natural writer, so it is different instructing my younger fella who has no writing interest. Anyway… Any advice?

I don’t have much of an answer for you. However, it is imperative that you get your hormones checked after birth. Get the DUTCH test, don’t go through your ob/gyn. I had my hormones checked a couple of years ago after dealing with cysts and irregular cycles (I was also trying to conceive), and my ob/gyn checked them and said I was just fine, no hormonal imbalance. I knew that was wrong, and nonsensical to say the least. Anyway, I went to a Naturopath who was uh-mazing. She ordered a DUTCH test and the results were crazy. I had a huge hormonal imbalance that was causing infertility and other health issues. After a few specific supplements (all natural), my hormones balanced (no cysts or irregular cycles), and I am about to have a baby in a few days (yay!). Anyway, I say all that to make the point about not relying on your ob/gyn for appropriate hormone assessment. I would find an ND promptly. You can order the DUTCH test privately, but my ND went quite in-depth with the results analysis. Nevertheless, symptoms that intensify around your cycle are more than likely hormones (I would think). Also, an in-depth nutrition panel should help. It seems like nutritional deficiency (especially after having a baby) could be a/the culprit.

If you are looking for something that your child can read alone, I can’t help, really. However, we use Give Me Liberty by Eric Foner. Even though the text may not be fitting for a 4th grader to comprehend alone, (it isn’t a complex read, just dense in some areas) it is easy to adapt for different age groups. It would be necessary for you to develop your own material, activities, and adaptation (simplifying of content). However, I think that Foner gives a really balanced view of history., and the text is excellent, compared to other homeschool history books/curriculum. I also have Hakim’s US History, but found some of the information to be a misrepresentation of history, although the pictures, and some information was useful. Frederick Douglass is a good literary addition to US History around this age. We also use Democracy in America (Toqueville), not as a spine yet, but I cherry pick topics to cover with the boys. Of course, they would need to be older to read it alone, but I just adapt it to their level.

Differentiating between definitions is not a distortion or misrepresentation, neither is it a straw man fallacy. The definition is important to the context of the “argument” or discussion. Wouldn’t you concur? Am I mistaken, or didn’t you say that AA was a privilege, one body over another body? Again, your interpretation of the meaning of “privilege” is erroneous in this application (constitution, law, government). The distinction isn’t petty, but pertinent.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I highly doubt legacy admissions will end, but at least they are putting on a good show:) I hope I am wrong-