:iagree: I might not exclusively make chili the way dh prefers it, but I wouldn't exclusively make it the way I prefer it, either. Just because I do the cooking doesn't mean dh isn't entitled to have some meals that he chooses.

Frankly I have no problem with the thread being deleted. Since very few Christians do identify themselves as "fundies," I think this entire thread has become a way for people to express what they don't like about conservative Christians, and to pat themselves on the back for not being one themselves. As someone else pointed out, fundamentalist is basically being defined as someone more conservative/literal/rigid/etc. than I am. Not that useful a term then, in my opinion.

The big must-have snack for me is popcorn. I make a big bowl, coat it with butter spray, then shake popcorn seasoning over it. Ranch and nacho cheese are my favorite. You can have 5 cups for 3 points, which is a very large, filling snack. I use loose kernels in a microwave popcorn container that I bought at Target.

Yes, you're right. I realized I was covering ground that has been covered elsewhere, but I wasn't sure how to answer your post, because I didn't totally see how it related to my previous post. I didn't pick up that you were answering a question. So, not being sure of your point, I tried to answer what I thought you were saying as well as I could. :)

I'm glad GretaLynne. I always know that I can interact with you on topics like this, because you are very gracious and respectful! Thank you! You did make one point that I do not understand. You said, "It diminishes the importance of the Bible when people insist on a literal interpretation (in essence if not in words, holding it up as a science text), because that places the scientific facts about the creation story on the same footing as the spiritual truths concerning the creation story." Why do you think that holding to a literal reading of creation diminishes the importance of the Bible, or the meaning of the creation account? I don't see how it robs the story of its spiritual value, believing that it actually happened the way it says it did. Would you mind elaborating on that?

What in the Bible would give the impression that there were any other people, with or without souls, before Adam and Eve? I also don't see any reason in the context of Genesis to take the 7 days as millions of years. It seems to me that God would have said many years, if many years passed. But he said it took seven days. Imo, it is people's desire to not contradict science (again, holding that as the authority that cannot be disputed), that leads them to interpret Genesis in that way. I do not see how it derives from the actual reading of the text itself.

Sort of. It does bother me when those who claim to believe the Bible allow that other kinds of knowledge are more accurate than what the Bible states, in any case. For example, if science weren't claiming that humans evolved from apes, Christians would accept the Bible's teaching that they were the first two people, created directly by God. But people believe instead that science has that part right, *not* the Bible, so they call the part where the Bible says something radically different "figurative". People want to say that it's a matter of interpretation, but in reality, they are saying that parts of the Bible are actually *wrong.* Either God did things the way the Bible says He did, or He didn't. If the Bible has errors about such important things as how the earth and all in it came to be, I have no idea why people should believe anything in it at all. It's all in question, then. Also, if God is capable of creating the world, orchestrating all the events in history, providing salvation through His own son, etc., I would think that He could also manage to produce a book about His plan that was actually true and accurate, in all points. If He couldn't even give a simple, real explanation of how He formed the earth, without making mistakes... that's pretty sad for an omnipotent, omniscient God. Or if a person who wrote it down made mistakes in that area, why trust what they wrote in another area? That is why I can understand much more clearly the viewpoint of someone who rejects the Bible altogether.

For the person who has no faith in the Bible as God's Word, that makes sense. I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise. However, it seems to me to be preaching to the choir to use arguments like, "The Bible is not a science text." To the person who believes the Bible, the answer to that is... "True, and....?" It only appeals to those who do hold science texts as being superior to the Bible in terms of accurately expressing reality.

I appreciated your post, but I have to vent a little here: when people make the comment that Genesis is not a "science text," it really bugs me. (And I have seen it all over the place, in just about every conversation on this topic, so I'm not aiming this at you personally, GretaLynne.) To me, that elevates science as being *the ultimate* in terms of reality, and relegates the Bible to a mere story that is to be disbelieved if at any point it seems to contradict what science tells us. If God is who the Bible claims He is, and if He did in fact send His message to mankind in one book, the Bible, He and the Bible itself are far above any science book written by a fallible man. If the two contradict, it is not the Bible that is wrong, it is SCIENCE. So, no the Bible is not a science text, and I praise the Lord that it is not! It is imminently more reliable and more trustworthy than any science text could ever be. I trust the perspective of the Creator far more than any of the insights of even the most intelligent products of his Creation.

Thank you for bringing up this aspect of the discussion, Tracy. I think it is a crucial point. I think it is almost impossible to conceive that physical death (for all creatures, plant, animal and human) has been God's plan from the beginning. That the death of all of His Creation was part of what God considered "good"?? If not, what did cause death, if not Adam's sin? It's not a point to just toss out the window, or reply with a "gotcha" question of one's own...I think this is a point that people should honestly consider.

It's clear from Scripture that believers are to join together regularly for worship, teaching, and to celebrate the Lord's Supper. While *where* it is to take place is not important, there is a definite structure in the NT church (decaons, elders, spiritual gifts being used regularly, caring for widows, older people teaching the younger, etc.) that is be in place. Personally, I think would be difficult for many people in today's culture to replicate this in their homes. There is also an accountability and a submission to authority that is called for, that doesn't seem to happen when a group of like-minded friends get together informally. *Could* a biblical church meet in a home? Yes, that is where the early church met. However, I did want to point out that there is more to a church as described in the Bible than simply getting together and doing worship and bible study together.

I have been looking at that option, but there is a lot of overlap between Notgrass W.H. and the time period we're doing this year (world history through 1849). A little more than half of the lessons in Part 2 would be review. In fact, I just pulled Noah from the co-op (CHASE) class where they are doing Part 2 of Notgrass W.H. next year, because of the overlap. I signed him up for health instead, since he still needed that class too. What about doing Notgrass US History next year? I'm really liking how this program looks, from what I can see on the website. Then Geography in 10th, World History in 11th, and gov./econ. in 12th? I've seen that most people tend to do American History in 11th grade-- is there a reason why I should wait to do that?

Thank you all for your posts. I've looked into all of your suggestions, and they have helped me to narrow down exactly what I'm looking for. I am leaning toward the traditional route for high school history, with one year American history, one year world history, a year of geography, and a year of civics/government. So now I have to decide in what order to do them, and which programs to use. I would like to use a program that has some sort of spine-- as much as we love good literature, I just feel more comfortable with a textbook to give structure for the upper levels. I also would still really like to cover 20th century history next year (9th grade). We have led up to this point in the history cycle twice before without really diving in on that fourth year, and I want to do that this time. I'm thinking of using this order: US History (focusing mostly on 1850s-today), Geography, World History, Civics/government. Does that make sense, or is there a strong reason for doing Geography in 9th, before moving on? If I do go with that order, I guess this is what I'm looking for: a textbook program that focuses on 20th century history (could be US or world history), that is suitable for a ninth grader. Would Notgrass US History be a good fit?

Your post literally gave me chills, Amber. So very, very insightful, and gracious. I hope you will consider emailing this to Mr. Pearl. He needs to read it.

I do like the looks of Sonlight 300, so I will have to look into that option a bit more. Would that count as a world history credit?

Thank you. I will check it out!

Thank you, Chris. I do think I tend to lean more toward the traditional approach as well. We've been through the history cycle twice, and to be honest, I don't think either of us has it in us to do it all again. :tongue_smilie: I like the way you're breaking it down, with one year of world history, one year of American history, and other social studies-type classes the other two years. When you do it this way, how do you do literature? Do you tie it into what you're learning in history at all, or is it totally separate?

I am trying to decide how to approach high school level history for ds who will be in 9th grade next year. We've mostly used the WTM approach to this point, with SOTW, and we've gone through the cycle twice. I just reread the WTM approach for high school, and I'm not sure that I want to continue with the four year cycle again through high school. Starting with the ancients a third time just sounds really blah to me, and I'm sure to ds as well. The time period we haven't done as much with is 1900 to the present, so I definitely would like to spend some time on those. We've barely done anything with the World Wars, for example. Never did much with Korea or Vietnam or the Cold War or any of the Presidents from the 1900s. I don't want to go through all of the ancients, middle ages, exploration AGAIN before we squeeze in this important modern stuff right before he graduates. Not to say we won't do any of that in high school, but just not right now. So.... not having WTM to fall back on, I'm at a loss. I don't even really know where to start looking. I need something reasonably priced. Engaging, and challenging. A Christian perspective would be nice. I tend to prefer programs that have a text-style spine, versus entirely literature based, though I would consider anything at this point. I would love to hear what you are using for high school, if you are not using the chronological 4 year approach. Or even if you are doing that, if you are using materials that could be used in a different order.

Okay, it's suddenly hitting me that my son is going to be in 9th grade next year, and I haven't given any thought to what how we will cover history in high school!! He has used mostly the Story of the World series, co-op classes, or things I have pulled together on my own, for the past 8 years, and now... I don't know WHAT to do! The only time period that he has not studied much is the 20th Century, so I know that is something I would like to spend more time on at some point in high school. Other than that, it's just a huge open space, waiting to be filled. I have no idea about programs, books, courses, anything....Any suggestions? ETA: Oops, I just realized I should be posting this on the High School Board!!! See, I really don't have my head wrapped around the fact that ds is going to be in HIGH SCHOOL!!! :)

Really?? I would have a hard time attending a church which offered stupid, immature, or unscriptural activities to any group of people. How could I respect the leadership if they had such bad judgment regarding young people? Or are you saying that you have never actually attended a church which had a youth group? I have to wonder what so many of you would think of our church's youth group. From some of the comments, I have to assume that many of you would be very shocked, because it's nothing like what's been described here. We meet Wednesday evenings for and hour and a half of prayer, worship, and Bible study. About every other month we will have a game night or other fun activity, and about that often we will also do a service project. All of the leaders are married, and all but one are parents who are active in the church. We don't seek to supplant the role of parents in discipling their children, but rather to supplement what they are doing, and provide the opportunity to interact with Biblical truth along with their peers in a supportive environment.

:iagree: I would just add this: While there certainly are men, Christian and otherwise, who want their wives to submit to them for reasons other than a desire to obey Scripture (power trip, abuse, ego, etc.), I think it's faulty reasoning to conclude that there is a bad motive like this among all, or even most, Christian men. My husband wants me to follow the Bible's teaching for wives for the same reason I want him to follow the Bible's teaching for husbands-- because we are all called to obedience, and because we each know the blessings that come from being obedient. There are also other reasons why following God's plan for marriages works well on a practical level, but just even if there weren't benefits and blessings in following God, it's still what we're called to do. Imo, the fact that I may be intelligent, capable, skilled, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. My husband knows my strengths, and considers all that I say, very carefully-- more carefully than he would consider the words of anyone else in the world. That is not a weak place to be in-- my knowledge and abilities are put to full use, constantly.

:iagree: My belief is that f you are a good parent, you can be a good homeschooling parent, if you are willing to do what it takes. Not everyone is willing, and if they are not, they should not take on the responsibility. But do I believe that I have a special, particular gift for homeschooling that others do not? No, I don't think so.

I have read this argument elsewhere online, and I find it to be a bit of a straw man argument. I didn't see anywhere in the story where it was claimed that the parents did not sign the papers, or that CWA stole away children without parental consent...rather it was that CWA was being overly aggressive about encouraging poor families to give up their children for adoption. A poor, struggling parent may well sign the papers to give their child what they consider to be a better life, but that doesn't necessarily make the process ethical. On one video, a woman was seen asking a group of villagers on behalf of CWA who would like to send their children to America, and telling them to leave their children there if they did. In the follow-up, the attorney for CWA denied that this was in any way coercive, but I think many people would disagree with that.

Why are you waiting so long to take him to the vet? It sounds from your description that this has been going on for several days at least. He sounds as though he's very uncomfortable, if not actually suffering. I would take him in to the vet tomorrow and find out why he is vomiting 5-8 times per day! Address the euthanasia issue after you at least find out what is wrong with the poor guy.

I'm wondering if anyone saw this story on the news, and what your reactions were, especially if you have experience with CWA or international adoption in general. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/15/cbsnews_investigates/main6210911.shtml CWA refutes the story here: http://www.cwa.org/cbsnews-response.htm Googling CWA Ethopian Adoptions brings up quite a few people who say that they were misled by CWA in various ways. I'm curious about this, especially because my sister in law is in the process of adopting from Ethiopia through CWA and expects to bring her son home in the next few months. I found the report troubling, and the response not entirely convincing, but I don't have all the background that some people might. Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences, positive or negative, about CWA?