Well, when I was seriously depressed, that's what I would have said, too - it was true enough, but not the whole story. IME, there's a world of difference b/w mentally healthy's "too lazy to clean" and mentally ill's "too lazy to clean". I, at least, really lost sight of what normal people were like and just how far I was from normal standards. Now I'm still "too lazy to clean", but I keep our house lightyears better than I did.

Wonder why he didn't get a cleaning woman before? In our case, neither of us are great cleaners, but, per a pp, depression complicated it a lot. Now we are messy but not dirty, and are working at keeping things picked up better.

Learning styles wise, it seems that the most direct correlation is sequential (parts-to-whole) or global (whole-to-parts). Also, the sensing/intuitive preference seems to be pertinent - it seems like people who are on the Sensing side are more parts-to-whole, and people who are more on the Intuitive side are more whole-to-parts. (For reference, the other two learning styles mentioned on the linked page are visual/verbal, and active/reflective.) Some questions from the Myers-Briggs personality test for kids that seem to touch on S/N: When given a division math problem to work on, which of the following approaches better describes this child's method to solving the problem: a) the child notes that this is a division problem, refers to the list of steps (mental or written) that must be taken to solve a division problem, then works the problem step-by-step until they get an answer (S) b) the child notes that this is a division problem, reminds himself or herself of what division means, perhaps by drawing a picture (mental or written) of dividing objects into parts, then uses their understanding of the goal to solve the problem (N) When the child is really interested in something (for example, a Tree), are they more likely to: a) ask a million questions about all of the details related to their interest, such as 'How many leaves are on that tree?' and 'how tall is the tree?' (S) b) ask a few deep, global questions about their interest, such as 'Where did trees come from?' (N) I'm pretty strongly N, and while I can learn parts-to-whole well enough, I need to know the *point* of each little part and how it fits into the whole right off, or my eyes glaze over and I have a hard time caring (or, alternatively, I get stuck on this one point until I grasp how it fits in). I just *hate* to do things without understanding *why*, without grasping how it fits into the big picture. My understanding of very parts-to-whole learners is that there isn't a big picture at all without the parts, and they are fine with learning just a part by itself - it can exist on its own and doesn't have to be plugged into the big picture to have a meaning. ETA: Though I score VSL on tests, I don't really think I'm actually VSL - I'm visual (more than auditory) but far more verbal, and really not all that spatial at all :giggle:. It's just that I am a global, intuitive thinker, as apparently are VSLs, and so I score highly on VSL tests.

Kinda. There are blog-specific conventions - instead of just citing facts, you ought to link to your source/proof, for example - and you structure blog posts differently than essays, certainly. I don't know if there's as much uniformity b/w blogs on wildly differing topics as there is with, say, essays. I mean, some blogs are more like photo essays than essays - while there are still differences in online photo/picture-heavy blog posts and the same in print, they are definitely closer together than a photo-heavy blog and a text heavy blog. But imo blogging is distinct enough from existing genres to be considered a new animal, and if you want to blog it's worthwhile to analyze quality blogs and learn the genre. Now, whether it is worth *school time* is up for grabs ;) - but I do think it qualifies as a skill of its own.

I *love* Koine - they do contemporary arrangements of hymns, plus some original songs. Accessible, but with musical depth - we love them here.

Might :glare:.

It does say "at least", so that leaves it open to be copyrighted longer than 50 years after the creator's death; it just can't be *less* than 50 years.

Only foreign works that are still under copyright in their country of origin, I think. At least with this law/treaty.

At least in this specific instance I'd guess it would be the copyright holder in the country of origin for the work(s) in questions.

My very rough understanding of this is that there are works which are still under copyright in their country of origin, but have been in the public domain in the U.S., and Congress would like to sign/uphold/something a treaty concerning this - so that we'd respect other country's copyrights as they would likewise respect ours. I'm actually in sympathy with this goal - I just don't understand what other potential applications there may be and if this is opening up a can of worms.

Clarifying, mostly.

Amillennialism.

:lol:

:iagree:

Well, if you are alive at the Second Coming, you could skip that nasty death stuff ;):lol:.

Knowing the difference b/w good and evil is different from *being* evil. And God is God, and we humans are humans - just b/c He can handle knowing what evil *is* without succumbing to it doesn't mean *we* can. And I submit that history shows that, by and large, we can't. Also, I believe that we were created by God to be in relationship with Him, that we were never meant to be *have* to deal with evil, and thus had no reason to be able to - that "being like God" was not what we were created to be, and that trying to do so was a bad, bad idea.

Kind of depends if you see good and evil as opposites, or evil as corrupted good. I believe that God *is*, and God is good, and so that good *is*, and evil is what good isn't. Evil can't exist without good, but good exists on it's own.

Lots of people don't. The danger, though, of minimizing sin is that it likewise minimizes the impact of Jesus' death, and His forgiveness. If we are mostly good people who screw up a bit, then what happens when you feel like a rotten person who screws up a *lot*. Does that mean you aren't saved? Many people on this thread have argued as much. Sure, you can be as bad as you want and be saved - but then you'd better shape up and fly right. Jesus is just for people who can be mostly good - and if you can't be mostly good, then I guess you're SOL. And that is a depressing bit of good news. Is that really all Jesus is good for - getting us over the hump - and now we'd better get cracking? No! The good news of the Gospel is for Christians, too.

He burnt out all the sin from His humanity, just as He does for those He saves. He's God, and sin is separation from God - He can, and does, breach the gap, in Himself and in us. Only we are still affected by sin in this fallen world, just as He was, until the Second Coming and the new heaven and new earth.

Well, the Buddhist is not sinning *by* doing a good deed. Rather he is sinning *as* he does a good deed. And if it makes you feel any better, I also say that Christians are sinning as we do good deeds, too ;).

Humanity *was* created good. But the fall so tainted everything that we can't do, think, even exist, without sinning - it's not *all* we are, but it *infects* all we are.

Ok, that's a philosophical question that very well may be beyond me :tongue_smilie:. But I'll take a stab. All the good in the world is from God. And God works that good through Christians and non-Christians. And it is good. But yet the person doing that good is not (unless they are Christ) untainted by sin. So any good they do is tainted by sin. So they sin as they do it, as we all sin when we do anything in this sinful world. And that sin counts against them. And merits death. Without Christ, they will suffer that merited death. Basically, it sucks to live in a fallen world. Thanks be to God that He sent Christ!

:iagree:

See, there is *no* difference. Sinners sin, period - that's what it *means* to be a sinner, one who sins. Christian sinners sin and non-Christian sinners sin.

Honestly, there's probably sin in both cases. Christians are still subject to sin, and the effects are insidious. I don't really believe anyone this side of heaven (but Christ ;)) does *anything* sin free - we're living in fallen world, sin taints *everything*, including Christians. Nobody does anything perfectly, not even Christians. Only Christ. And we can't take credit for Him ;).