I almost agree with those who say "both," but truthfully, if I'm choosing between emphasizing a well-rounded education or teaching domestic skills as I raise my daughter, I'm definitely going to emphasize the education. Most domestic duties can be picked up as adults with little or no training. I never cooked a meal or cleaned at all growing up, and yet I quickly learned to do so with no problem when I needed to. I really think that my education makes me a much better mother than years of housekeeping training would have. The "keepers at home" mentality for young girls sort of gives me a strange feeling, to be honest, when it comes to having classes for girls on housekeeping and such a strong emphasis on domestic skills. My hope is for both my sons and my daughter to have basic life-skills and housekeeping skills before they leave home. I want my dd to be just as well-rounded as the boys. On the other hand, I do hope that my dd will decide to stay home with her children some day. I guess where I differ from some of the others is that I think a well-rounded education (including college) is the best preparation for that. Erica

LOL!! Maybe it's because we just got two kitties after 13 years of marriage with no pets, and I am really loving these kitties, but I found your post hilarious!!! :lol:

If there was someone I really believed in on the national scene, I would vote for that person. However, such a person doesn't seem to exist in the presidential campaign this year. And when I say that McCain is the lesser of two evils, I don't mean that he's actually EVIL, lol. If that were the case, I could not morally justify voting for him. I think when they use this phrase, people generally just mean that neither of the two main candidates totally fits their ideal, but they are choosing the one that fits better. One more thing... while of course some people feel differently, I do feel that it would be a waste of a vote for me to write in some other name on the ballot. That person would have absolutely no chance of winning, and if all Republicans who weren't totally happy with McCain did that, it would just make it all the more likely that Obama would win, which would concern me greatly. Erica

Well, I'd love to say that I really love John McCain, but to be honest, this year it's a lesser of two evils for me. I wouldn't have chosen McCain to be the Republican nominee. I voted for another candidate in the primary, and would have preferred several others over McCain. However, my values and philosophies are much more aligned with the Republican platform than with the Democrats, so unless a candidate veers strongly away from where their party generally stands, I'm generally going to vote with the Republicans, because they better reflect my opinions about how the country should be run, on just about every issue. So, I will vote for McCain, simply I believe he's a better choice than Obama. I was just discussing this with my children this morning, how a lot of people really LOVE Obama, but that I don't know many people who LOVE McCain. I think that might be a big help to Obama, and that it could be a factor in helping him win this election. Erica

Without going into personal experience with these sorts of situations, I would just like to say that I've seen this dynamic in the church, and I think it's a scary trend. Young parents who are easily influenced by others whom they consider to be spiritually strong follow these examples, and take these sorts of guidelines to heart as the guide for all spiritually on-top-of-things parents. (I.e, if a toddler will not sit still and silent in church, they are being willfully disobedient and must be spanked. All babies and toddlers should be in the worship service, for its entirety, every week.). Personally, I think it is wrong to spank a young child for not sitting still in church. That doesn't fall into the category of willful disobedience, to me. It falls under the category of developmental ability for the child, and personal preference of the parent. You may like the idea of your baby/toddler sitting still and silent for extended period, but imo, it doesn't make them *wrong* if they are unable to comply. Erica

Right, I understood that. I guess my point was that, to me, the two don't seem analogous. *No one* wants to be fat. *Most people* would like to be thin. That's why, while as I said it's better not to make personal remarks about people's appearances in any case, I don't see as it as insulting in the same way. Unless a person is terribly underweight, so as to be considered very unattractive or unhealthy, the way overweight people are considered in our society. Then they'd be more comparable situations. But I didn't have that impression of you, Tammy. What Kelli in TN said is more what I was thinking, as well. That though it may be rude, it's not meant to be insulting. Erica

Well, I wouldn't say that to someone myself, because I don't think it's polite to make personal remarks about people's appearance. However, I have to disagree that it's the same as calling a fat person a whale. Clearly, that would be intentionally insulting. **No one** refers to a heavy person's weight because they wish they weighed that much -- and yet I think that's likely why these people made these comments to you. Personally, if I ever get to be very thin myself, I hope that I will remember that though I might prefer not to have any comments made at all, it is a blessing to be a healthy, slim weight, and if others who struggle mention it from time to time, they're not meaning to be offensive. Rather, they wish they could be in my shoes. Erica

But Phred, aren't you simply making an argument against the death penalty here? While it is certainly a grey area that can be debated (whether the death penalty is moral), that isn't the question at hand. The existence of a legal practice does not pertain to the concept of people innately believing that it is wrong for innocent people to knowingly be harmed. Look at the horrors of WW2 in Germany-- and yet these examples of innocents being killed do not prove that people do not have the truth placed in their hearts by God. Rather, they are examples of times when people have chosen not to follow that truth. The Bible teaches that everyone, Christian or not, chooses at times to disregard what they know to be right and true, and follow their own ways instead. This is the very definition of sin (James 4:17-So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin). But the existence of sin does not conflict with the fact that God put the concept of right and wrong into our hearts. Don't you find it at all interesting that even in these very threads, the bottom line that so many seekers of truth have come to as a definition of morality, even after rejecting so much of Christianity, is the very heart that Jesus said was the most important of all? Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Here is a link which shows how all of the major religions of the world also promote this same belief (which they call the law of reciprocity): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Christianity You may have legitimate questions about how Christians can condone a system of punishment that does sometimes result in the death of innocent people, but imo, that is a seperate topic. Erica

I believe that according to Scripture, every believer should be serving the local church, because we are all spiritually gifted, and the church depends on believers using their spiritual gifts regularly. The ways you do this can vary, and during busy times of your life of course it is right to choose ways to minister at church that do not negatively impact your work at home with the children, for example. There are simple, non-time consuming ways of serving, even if it's nothing more than helping in the nursery, or serving at fellowship dinners, etc. (i.e. things that require no outside prep time, but give an opportunity to serve during services/events you'd already be attending anyway.) However, I have to admit that I must humbly disagree with the philosophy which says "there will be time to minister when the children are grown," as if to say that until that time, our spiritual gifts are not needed in our local church. I honestly don't think stay-at-home moms are given a pass on serving in the church altogether, which is basically what I've heard some people suggest (not necessarily on this board, just in general). What about working moms-- they are just as busy, if not more so, than stay at home moms- should they not minister either? What about dads, who work all day and then have to squeeze out all the family time they can on weeknights and weekends-- should they be the ones to take our place in serving at the local church? And if not parents of children, who are these adults at church who are expecting to do all the ministry? Retired folks and singles only? Clearly God did not intend for a church to grow and flourish based on the ministry of just a few people in the church. For me, it's not a question of whether we should serve at various times in our lives, but in which ways. When I had babies, I served in the nursery with them, or taught a toddler Sunday School class with one of my toddlers. I've helped with VBS, because my kids would be there anyway. Now that my youngest is five, I feel that I can do more, and there was a need for a children's choir director, so I am doing that now, as well as helping in other ways here and there. Everyone I know at my church who is homeschooling is very involved in our church, serving in many different ways. Erica

Phred, One easily observable common belief that God has imprinted on the human heart is that it is wrong to hurt an innocent person. Throughout this thread and others on this board, the common definition of morality that has been espoused over and over again is "I think it's wrong to knowingly hurt another person." Even those who are not willing to say definitively that almost anything at all is wrong, will insist that it's wrong to hurt another person. Throughout history, hurting other people has been considered wrong in most cultures. This does not mean that every one acts in accordance with this in practice, (which as Julie pointed out, does not surprise the Christian, because our worldview teaches that every one does fall short of God's standard) but very few mentally well people will assert that it is perfectly fine to knowingly hurt an innocent person. Erica

We'll be driving about 45 minutes each way starting this fall. We have several co-ops that are closer to us, but we think that this one will best fit our family's needs, so we're making the trip. My 11 yos's French, science, literature, and art will all be taken care of there (with assigned homework to do at home during the week), which will lighten my load quite a bit. It's worth the trip for me to have so much covered, and so well. Erica

LOL, Andie, I am the same way. I cry every time a group of kids leaves my care, even if it's only been a week at VBS. Come to think of it, I used to get teary eyed on the last day of school, too, when I was a child, saying goodbye to my teacher. LOL, I'm a softie from way back! Erica

This is my favorite book of all time! I just love it. Erica

In the morning, always. I have fine, very oily hair, and if I were to wash it in the evening, my hair would be visibly oily by mid-afternoon the next day. As it is, when I wash it in the morning, it's starting to get oily when I go to bed that night! I do take showers at night as well when needed. Erica

Thank you all for the recommendations! You gave me good recommendations, and I jotted the list down and took them to the pet store with me to check out the packages. After looking at all the ingredient lists and comparing prices, I ended up going with Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul. Dumbest name ever, but it was the cheapest brand that had everything I was looking for (meat as main ingredient, high protein, no corn or wheat, and no by-products.) It was actually cheaper than several other foods that were inferior in terms of quality! So I was happy with that choice. Unfortunately one of our two kitties is not so sure about this new food, so we'll have to see if he grows to like it. If not, I may be revisiting this thread again soon! :tongue_smilie: Erica

I've been researching this for hours, and I still haven't been able to choose a food for our new kittens. I'm looking for something that is a balance between healthy for the cat, and yet not overly expensive. I also want a food that I can obtain easily, either at a store or online (if the shipping costs are reasonable), and one that cats really enjoy. Which type of food do you feed your cats?

I watched it by myself because I knew that dh wouldn't connect with it the way I would, and I didn't want to hear his "commentary" throughout! :tongue_smilie: I was really moved by the story. While the lifestyles and values were very different from my own family, and the style of speech did sort of bug me at times, I thought it was a believable, heartfelt story. A couple of scenes really stood out to me: when Juno saw her adoptive mother at the mall with a friend's dd, and while her friend watched for a second, then said, "Boring, c'mon," Juno couldn't keep her eyes off of her. It was like she was getting a glimpse of what the future was going to hold for her baby, and it was I think the first time she (and the viewers) realized she actually did care about that. Another scene that made me cry because it had that same effect was when she found out that the adoptive couple was splitting up, and she pulled the car over and wept. Again, this showed that despite her tough facade, she really did care about her baby's future. And of course, the ending was very touching. I thought that very last part with the adoptive mom rocking the baby, with the note from Juno, on the wall... ugh, I'm tearing up now just thinking about it!! I thought that was a perfect ending to the movie. It was similar to Little Miss Sunshine for me, in the sense that this was a family/situation I would not want to emulate, but I thought there was a lot of truth and insight about life and relationships in both, and I found both movies very touching.

Veering wildly OT: Erica, how is it possible you only have 26 posts? LOL, well, I'm gradually getting sucked back in, that's how! I used the board switch as a chance to regroup and refocus my priorities, and I tried going cold turkey on the new boards. But, I've really missed it, and I'm testing the waters to see if I can manage to post in moderation this time. I am really trying not to go overboard!!! Erica

I have three silly things that I believed for way longer than I should have!: 1. I thought "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" was actually about a mommy kissing the real Santa Claus (in whom I firmly believed until age 9!), and keeping it a secret from daddy. I thought it was an awful song. I was in high school at least before I realized that it was supposed to actually be the daddy dressed as Santa Claus. 2. When I was 4, I believed that I saw a baby octopus in the wood shavings around our front porch. I told lots of people that I saw it-- and I still remember seeing it. It was mid-elementary school before I realized that must have been a dream! and 3, at the risk of sounding truly crazy, another dream that I had when i was very young, that thought actually happened....I believed until I was about 9 years old that I saw a huge life-sized Mr. Potato Head man come in our back door, and put presents on our kitchen table. I clapped my hands when I saw the Digger Dog he put there, but then he saw me, and took all the presents away! I was so sad, and felt guilty about that for years! I was relieved when I finally realized when I was about 8 or 9 that that couldn't have really happened! I can still see it as though it were just yesterday, though. LOL Erica

We have an 11 week old kitten, and just last night we brought home a second kitten, 8 weeks old, to be his playmate. Whenever I allow them together in the same room, the 11 week old constantly tackles, holds down, kicks, and bites the younger kitten. (He did this with a stuffed animal before we got the kitten.) He bites him right on the throat, which makes me really nervous. Neither kitten hisses or acts angry, so I'm not sure if this is playing or fighting? The little one does sometimes meow in pain, so when that happens I interrupt and separate them, taking one of them to another room if necessary. Or if the biting goes on too long, and the little kitten can't get away at all, I'll break that up as well. I want them to bond and love each other, and I'm afraid the little one might get hurt! We haven't owned cats before, and I'm wondering if I am handling this correctly? Any suggestions? Erica

Thanks to you too, GretaLynne! I was hoping you'd see my last post, because I felt that we shared a good, productive exchange, as well. It is good to know that we've understood each other. All the best to you!

For me, it is very straightforward and plain to see that actions which generate tremendous suffering are even more immoral than actions which generate less suffering. So when I see all the horrors out there that are causing so much suffering, suffering beyond my ability to comprehend, and I see people getting upset about two people who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment, and calling that immoral, I just shake my head in disbelief. To me, that's a very serious case of not having priorities straight. I. Just. Don't. Get. It. Shouldn't the immoral actions which generate the most harm and suffering be our primary concern? Okay, yes, I understand much better now where you are coming from as well! And I actually agree with you much more than I thought I might. I agree with you, that here on earth some actions are much worse than others. A earthquake which kills thousands of people is worse than a car accident which kills a few. Both are terrible tragedies which affect people's lives, but one has much more serious repercussions. Same with someone who kills someone, versus slapping someone's face: both are negative, but the one is much more vicious, and has a much more tragic outcome. In the same way, yes, we could agree that (politics aside) the deaths of thousands in Iraq is more of a concern than the relationship of two gay men. It has more of an impact on the world, and a much more dire outcome. That is true. And Christians, like everyone else, should be more concerned with the really damaging things, I agree with you. Many of us probably are guilty of having out of whack priorities at times, I agree. However, I think I should mention that this is not what Christians mean when they say that one sin is no worse than another. They are talking about a person's standing before God. Without getting into too much theology, this is actually a more theological question than a practical one. God is perfect and holy, and the Bible says that the person who breaks even one tiny part of His law is guilty of all. So in that way, we are all sinners before God, whether we lied, or murdered, or committed adultery, or any of the things that are contrary to God's character. Jesus said that if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, it's as though you've committed adultery. That doesn't mean that it has the same consequences or is as damaging to others, but it is enough to condemn you before God as a sinner. And that is why the Bible teaches that there is no one who can stand perfect before God, because every one of us has violated His law, whether it's in relatively big or in small ways. And that is why we all need Christ's death on our behalf, to pay for those sins, which is the basis of Christianity. Maybe one reason why Christians tend to emphasize that all sins are equal in God's view, is that they want to counteract the popular notion that Christians actually use their religion as an excuse to condemn activities or people that they just personally find objectionable. For example, people often accuse Christians of being homophobic, and using their faith as an excuse to condemn homosexuals. So Christians want to point out that, no, they really don't see homosexuality as being worse than any others, that every sin is enough to condemn us before God. They are trying to say that they view themselves as just as sinful as a homosexual, or a murderer, or someone having premarital sex, as far as their standing before God goes. But maybe that approach isn't the best way, since from what you've said, it can be taken to mean that telling a little white lie is just as bad as killing a room full of people, which clearly doesn't ring true here on earth. Thanks for the discussion! Erica

Phred, I have to admit that I don't understand how what you've said here relates to what I said. The question was asked, "Why do Christians react differently to homosexuality than to other types of sin, while claiming that all sin is equally wrong?" That is the context in which I made my post. I was explaining that it's not that Christians believe homosexuality is worse, it's just that that is the issue that is currently being actively promoted in the media, which distresses people. As I alluded to before, if I'd be alive 50 or so years ago, and it was becoming acceptable to promote premarital marriage, I'd have opposed that too. There's nothing special about homosexuality, other than the fact that it is the current day issue that is currently being debated. I don't agree that homosexuality constitutes a legitimate minority in the same way that women and african americans are. Theirs is a practice/lifestyle, the others were their actual genetic identity. Despite the hopes of many, there has been no evidence at all that homosexuality has a genetic cause. Framing it that way (as a minority) has been an effective tool, though, to force acceptance. As far as being "equal" under the law, I am not overly concerned with whether gay marriage is approved legally. However, I cannot and will not recant on the teachings of the Bible, simply because our culture of shifting values might like me to do so. (Sorry, some of my quotes are mixed in with yours. I haven't fully caught on to this new board yet.) Erica