How much are we all feeling the pinch? Are most of us cutting back? Anyone spending more? Poll coming.

We love Chik-Fil-A, but only eat there about once every two months. Second choices are Subway and Burger King. We rarely eat fast food any where else.

Well, I guess chocolate will go back to being "the food of the Gods." :D I'm thinking that with the meteoric rise predicted in the price of grains, oil, and cotton as well, we will revert to being skinny and naked.

We have people to turn to, and it would not be a problem, but would only do it in case of dire need.

Are these just for little kids? It looks like something that my 17 yo might have fun with, and it's inexpensive. Any thoughts?

I'm already pretty lean on kitchen stuff. I just decluttered the kitchen last week. I would keep the grater thingy, that's all I really use. It takes more effort to get out and clean the food processor. If I went really minimalist, I would get rid of my crockpot, microwave, breadmachine, cheesecake pan that I've never used, bundt pan, hot air popper and whirly pop ( I know how to make popcorn in a pan on the stove).

I was wondering if there is any risk of disease or parasites eating raw liver.

I was reading a previous thread because I've just recieved word from my doctor that my iron levels are low. I've also been poking around on the net to see what remedies are out there. Liver was recommended as source of iron, has anyone ever taken liver pills or powder? (I did see the post on frozen liver.) These are advertised as supplements for athletes but one reviewer on amazon said she took it for anemia. Is there any reason why I shouldn't take liver pills? Another item that interested me was an herbal blend called Iron Woman Tea. Does anyone have experience with that?

I know SOS very well. I've eaten it and made it myself. Never heard the other phrase before. Come to think of it, do they even sell those little jars of chipped beef any more?

I thought the saying was "S--- on a shingle." But we're old school. :D

Facebook has this app that's going around on my friends sites, called the "Autism Quotient Test." I looked it up and it is not just something off the wall, apparently this test has been around for a while in other places. Anyway, many of my "friends" have taken the test and all scored in the average range, even the one who has a definite aspergers diagnosis. However, I scored high enough to be on the very edge of the spectrum. My question is, if you are familiar with this test, is it a bunch of baloney, or does it have any validity?

I am 46. I was always very regular until about 40. Then my cycles were from 32-34 days instead of exactly 28. They were also extremely heavy (clots) and I got horrible hormonal headaches and emotions on day one, for about 3 years. I also battled with depression then. Three years ago, things started changing again. My cycles gradually got shorter and shorter and lighter and lighter. Now they are 24-27 days apart and last about 5 days with just spotting on the last 3 days. Some months I can tell that I did not ovulate. My skin has gotten much dryer, I stopped using soap at all and had to change my shampoo. My hair has gotten thinner and grayer. This year my eye sight changed, now I need reading glasses. The funny thing is that I feel emotionally and physically better than I have in a long while. I am walking daily, taking cod liver oil, and trying to eat an all natural diet. I do have a little sag around the middle, but I've given up worrying about it. After all I have had 5 kids, 1 by c-section, and I seriously do not want to do crunches. :) My mom says she had very few hot flashes, I have had none. I'm hoping I don't have much longer to go before I'm free from AF.

I agree Historical criticism falls short, but I personally think it raises some points that can't be ignored. I envy you your faith, I'm increasingly sceptical.

The book is extremely well researched. It is written by James Kugel, professor of Hebrew at Harvard. He tries to be balanced in his examination of both sides, the ancient and the modern. The most disturbing thing I've read was about the scripture in Isaiah that reads "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son." The word in English is "virgin" because of a Greek translation, but in ancient Hebrew the word means only "young woman." From the surrounding context there is a possibility that the young woman was a wife of the king. Later on there is a passage rejoicing at the birth of a royal son. Why do we say this is prophetic? Only because a writer in the New Testament tells us it is. He would have been referring to the Greek version of the scriptures. In fact it seems that there is a tradition of using scripture liberally to make it apply to many situations where it may not originally have done so.

I'm going to be general because there is just too much information to sift through. This is just about what we call the Old Testament. One example is that in the original language of the Old Testament books there are recorded songs of (particular people) or poetry that contain language that is far, far older in usage than the surrounding text. Plus, the story that surrounds the songs doesn't always match up with all the events depicted in the story. Which leads scholars to believe that the songs came first then the story was built out of the song. There is historical precedent for this in many cultures. Another example is what other cultures from the same time period have to say about a particular people or historic event. Sometimes there are significant differences or details that would lead to a different conclusion than the traditional one. So how do we decide what really happened? Do we automatically assume the Bible is 100% accurate? There are also questions of the original intent, the authors, and the particular history of each book of the Bible and the time period surrounding it. Are the traditional teachings accurate? Are the traditional translations accurate? Are we reading more into scripture than is actually there? Are we trying to make modern applications with scripture that was never intended to to be used that way? There are even questions as to the history of the nation of Israel and how monotheistic it really was in practice. Historical study would suggest that the Bible possible exaggerates Israel's importance in the land that it occupied. This could go on and on. Hopefully it answered your question.

Frankly, I will rejoice when it is all over.

I'm reading a book called How to Read the Bible: Then and Now. It compares the Hebrew Bible and ancient traditional teachings on the scriptures with modern historical criticism, and it tries to do that without judgement of either side. The book opens up a lot of questions about how we should interpret the scriptures that I've never encountered in the last 46 years of attending churches. The church that I am attending does not address any of these questions at all. In fact, it seems as if they don't even exist. Now, I understand that an upholder of Sola Scriptura would look askance at modern criticism; however, I'm wondering why we rarely look at the arguments of the other side. Instead we just seem to trust that what we are told about scripture is the truth. Don't we hold that same mindset against other people when they refuse to listen to our reasoning? Personally, from what I've read, modern criticism makes a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. On the other hand, there are many valid points made from real historical evidence. Plus, it seems that we rely a lot more on traditional teaching than we would admit. Anyway, as a self-motivated learner, I am beginning to feel almost as though I've been misled and cheated. The hard questions seem to be only debated among the "educated elite" of the churches and the "lower sorts" get the traditional interpretations plus an exhortation to have just have faith when hard questions arise. I must admit this is causing a great deal of conflict in my mind because I value intellectual honesty very highly and recently have confronted a respected church member about a particular question. He told me I may have a point, but it wasn't really important, the big picture was still the same. Have any of you ever had this same conflict? How did you handle it? How do you maintain your integrity yet not open up topics that could cause others to lose their faith? Is that even possible? Are there churches out there that let you explore all questions about the historical validity of the Bible without judgement? I know this is long and rambling. I hope no one is offended.

The one thing that convinced me about the age of the earth more than anything was the decoding of the human genome sequence. It is real science that is able to tell us something about all life on earth and how it is related.

Peace to you.

Garth books- It's so sad, really, but I don't tell anyone about the theology books I read because they are so far removed from what is taught in my church and the churches of my friends: theistic evolution, modern criticism, comparative religion. I think they'd be less shocked if I told them I read Demons and Angels and The Da Vinci Code. Garth movies- Barbara Streisand musicals. Lol. I love her singing, I couldn't care less about her public persona. Garth food- jalapeno cheetos

This is how I have come to think about Bible lessons lately because I've been delving into Biblical History. I prefer to camp on one spot in scripture and study the context and original intent, if possible. May I ask what kind of church you attend?

Yeah. I didn't know that people actually ate them on purpose. I had only heard of that dish as "Rocky Mountain Oysters" in the context of a joke played on someone.

Maybe it is because Syria was not considered a nation or one people, just a land area occupied by different people?

Yep. some of the people who lived in Syria before the Assyrians were Akkadians, Canaanites, Amorites, Arameans, and of course, the Hebrews. The Assyrians probably get more press because they are historically closer in time, with more information available, plus they were a pretty harsh people. The question interested me too, because I didn't know the answer. :D

Paraphrased from my World Book Encyclopedia: Untill 1918, Syria included much of what are now Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Parts of Turkey. Various Semitic groups ruled parts of Syria from about 3500 B. C. to 539 B. C.. In 732 B. C. The Assyrians conquered most of Syria, they ruled until 612 B. C., when the Babylonians took control. Assyria was an ancient country on the upper Tigris in Mesopotamia and covered the northern part of present-day Iraq.