I'm doing (informal) world geography this year in K, and planning world history in 1st, mostly to give dd some pegs to hang knowledge on, as well as help give her an idea of place and time. So as she reads or hears about places and people and events, she already has a basic framework in place to slot that new knowledge into.

A few thoughts (from a pastor's wife): Are people actually complaining to *you*? Or does your dh tell you complaints that people have brought to him? Or are you/dh getting all this through the grapevine?:glare: If people are complaining to you, I'd tell them to address it w/ your dh, and walk away if they won't stop. It's not your place to be his informal complaints dept, especially as it's stressing you out :grouphug:. And for your dh wrt addressing complaints, anything people won't tell him directly isn't worth worrying about - mentally circular file it ;). For those that people bring to him personally, after discussing it, thoughtfully and humbly consider if they have a point, and change as needed. One thing dh mentioned - it's best if your dh doesn't make any big changes for a good 6mo-1yr. It's best to keep things as they are as you get a feel for the job and the people involved, since just being the new guy is a big change - don't want to overload people with change. Then, after sufficient time, start introducing change gradually. If he's already changed a bunch, it might be worth changing some of it back - people don't generally do well with lots of changes right away.

Things I noticed: *The ToC has live links automatically with the pdf conversion of vol 2&3, just like the Kindle, but vol 1 doesn't. I spent about an hour putting in bookmarks to compensate. *The flowchart in vols 1 & 3 didn't come out well in the conversion. Vol 2 is same as Kindle. *With the Kindle version, you can go to the ToC directly. With the pdf conversion, you have to bookmark it or go to the beginning and page forward a few times. Otherwise it seems to be a good conversion - the linked ToC is the only biggie imo.

ESV - a readable and fairly literal translation that also maintains a sense of poetry. ETA: With the dc we use a children's Bible whose text is a somewhat simplified version of the ESV.

My dh hasn't seen it and won't - he can't handle (or doesn't want to, anyway) the tragedy that sets up the plot. I'm not seeing it for the same reasons. But the senior pastor at our church saw it and really liked it - rec'ing others see it. So he, at least, took it as helpful encouragement.

*I* learned the WRTR/SWR phonograms/rules, and use them as I walk dd5 through spelling or reading whatever word she's interested in, focusing a lot on syllables. I also bought some LeapFrog videos - Letter Factory, Word Factory, and Word Caper - which have helped a lot with giving dd5 the basic idea, as well as generating interest. We have some Bob books and other decodable books - planning to pull them out and work through them here soon. ETA: She knows the alphabet and letter sounds well, and can spell several words, but hasn't cracked blending yet.

I've been looking for resources for daily prayer, and I found a Lutheran prayer book that's all in Latin :). It has the orders of service for Matins, Vespers, and Compline, plus all the seasonal propers, the psalter, and other hymns (much is pointed for chanting, and the site has instructions on how to chant) - it's quite complete, as well as completely in Latin ;). My Latin's not that great, but since most of the ordinaries are familiar (in English, anyway), I can make out a decent bit. It's fun to try, anyway :tongue_smilie:. And as we do these services in English now, I figure it'll be both fun and helpful to sometimes do them in Latin in a few years :).

When I took the TX state exams back in the late 90s, our practice exams for math were a *lot* tougher than the actual exam. Could that still be the case?

(I'm not looking to debate their validity ;) - I just want to get a clear understanding of what they *are*.) So, I'm Lutheran, and Reformed beliefs about baptism are both close and yet very different from ours, and for the life of me I can't make sense of it - everything I read seems to contradict each other. On the one hand, my understanding is that Reformed theology does not believe in baptismal regeneration. Yet Calvin certainly seems to say that baptism is doing *something*, something which to my Lutheran ears sounds a lot like forgiving sins and creating faith, but apparently isn't . From what I've got so far, in Reformed theology, infant baptism: *Makes the child part of the covenant *Is a sacrament, a means of grace *Is NOT a means by which God forgives sins and creates faith (i.e. no baptismal regeneration) Do I have that right? My questions: *What does it mean to be part of the covenant through baptism if it *doesn't* mean that God works through baptism to create saving faith? *What is God doing (if anything) through baptism? And, again, please, *please* don't turn this into a debate on the rightness/wrongness of Reformed beliefs - spin off another thread if you simply must go there ;). I'm only trying to figure out what they *are*, so I'd really appreciate it if we could keep discussion more or less on that :). Pretty please? :tongue_smilie:

I think they just aren't/weren't very good friends. B/c I agree with you, a good friend would have given you a heads-up about it. But it is easier to do that when the friend giving you the heads-up doesn't think it is worth breaking the friendship over (even if others in your circle do). Because I can see the WTM thread now, "My friend told me she can't be friends with me if I do/say/believe 'x'!" - the righteous indignation would fly :lol:. Basically, it is a conversation that is unlikely to end well ;), and I can understand why people would just try to avoid the unpleasantness and let it the friendship fade away quietly. (I even think advice of this sort is given regularly here - that unless you are *really* good friends, just let the relationship fade instead of confront/question them over it.) But it hurts :grouphug:. My sis had this same thing happen to her with her last boyfriend. Apparently she said something 'wrong' - her guess is when she said she wasn't sure if she wanted kids - and he broke up with her two days later without ever discussing it (but alluded to it in his break-up speech :glare:). She felt just like you - that if this was a dealbreaker, why didn't he *say so* or discuss her "wrong answer" before breaking up. She thought their relationship meant more than that, that he'd be willing to at least make sure she really did think/believe the "wrong way" before ending it. But apparently not :glare:. And it bothered her a lot.

Oh, I agree that there's nothing wrong with using more polite language in polite society (or wherever). That was directed at people who think it is morally wrong to use the "real" word but have no problem using the polite version. Of course, being consistent there leads to not using *anything* to express surprise/displeasure, which per this thread apparently some people do :001_huh:.

Strictly my own experience, but I consider myself fairly well read, and I found that after let my swearing standards slip, after a while I *did* find it hard to use other words. Using a swear was reflex, and it took effort to find a better word. When I came to that realization, I started making more effort to control my language - not everything needs a real swear, and it *is* too easy to slip into that habit.

:iagree:

See, I like all the various euphemisms, because they express different levels of frustration. "Oh bother" conveys a much smaller degree of upset than "Oh f---", and usually my tone of voice matches. (Although in polite society sometimes a euphemism is used when I'd otherwise use a real word, and my tone of voice reflects that.) And saying something silly like "gosh-diddly-osh" makes the cause seem funny. The word used both reflects and creates the level of frustration caused by the motivating event. Maybe I'd be better off by not commenting at all if it doesn't rise to the level of a "real" swear, but I'm just too verbal for that :giggle. (And some day I'm going to learn a bunch of Shakespearean insults and vulgarities to expand my repertoire :D.)

I don't mind euphemisms, but what bugs me is people who think it is morally wrong to say the real word but are fine with euphemisms :glare:. All they are are just a more polite way to say the same thing. I agree with reserving them for dire situations, and one thing I've noticed is that you can *make* the situation seem dire or otherwise by whether you use a swear. Habitual swearing makes everything seem dire, and so both heightens negative feelings and diminishes what dire is. Really, I've no moral issue with swearing, which is why I sometimes take issue with most anti-swearing arguments, but habitual swearing is definitely a poor habit, with lots of negative consequences.

Oh, I've first hand experience with how overuse of swears degrades one's vocabulary and overall ability to express oneself :glare: - no argument there. I don't mind having the words as part of my "arsenal" - sometimes they really are the best way to convey something - but they do tend to become all purpose words to convey three zillion things, and before you know it you can't easily come up with alternatives :glare:. Makes it hard to reserve them to their proper time and place.

Can you compromise on one snooze? I did this in college, and it becomes a habit - that you get so used to hitting snooze that you can do it without actually waking up, and then you *have* to keep setting it early or you *will* be late. I ended up setting mine a full *two hours* early before I finally broke the habit. Keeping the alarm across the room (or having your spouse wake you) is about the only way to break it.

Are they ever appropriate to use? In the other thread, a lot of people said that saying "what the..." was inappropriate b/c it implied a swear of some sort. So if it was inappropriate to say WTH or WTF, it was inappropriate to say WT. (And defenses were mounted of WT by arguing it has an "innocent" meaning, as opposed to arguing that, as a euphemism, it can be appropriate in situations in which the full phrase is not.) Now I admit, I swear (more than I'd like), and so I do say WTH and WTF in all their, er, glory. But while I'd not say WTH or WTF in church, for example, if a situation occurred there in which those phrases would otherwise be used, I'd probably say WT and not think twice about it. It's similar to the example given on the other thread, of "I'll be ****ed!" being euphemistically shorted to "I'll be!" - sure it means the same thing, but it's more acceptable to say. Granted, this only applies if you think that saying WTH or WTF or whatever is acceptable (in some contexts) in the first place. But to me about all made-up swears are just euphemisms for the "real thing" - I don't get how saying "Oh fiddlesticks!" is ok if "Oh F---!" is always wrong. (Honestly, I think it is ridiculous that in English-speaking countries the worst swears are mere vulgarities while actual blasphemies are the "tame" ones; my understanding is that in most European countries (at least the Catholic ones), it's the opposite, which makes way more sense to me.) Anyway, I guess I see both actual swears and the various euphemisms as having appropriate times and places to be used, with some euphemisms being perfectly acceptable in polite company (though, like actual swears, much better used as rare-ish emphasis and not dropped every other sentence - or word :glare:.)

FWIW, I'm a confessional Lutheran, and I'd let him do it. If people are upset, it's their problem - it's a secular group, there's no SoF or anything you'd be going against. The only reason I wouldn't was if I was genuinely worried that people would be offended and attack my dc over it (as opposed to me) - and if that was the case, I'd leave the coop rather than walk on tiptoes.

Well, I'd never consider them a conservative Christian, and if I fit the bill, I'd not call myself one (I wouldn't *want* to call myself one ;)). Theologically conservative, politically liberal is what I'd call that.

This is part of the reason why I don't call myself a conservative Christian - I don't fit their definition of "Christian" well - but I realized that also I don't want to be defined by my political positions. I'm a proud confessional Lutheran :), but I don't know *what* I think about most political issues anymore. I *do* know, however, that I don't want to be associated with any major political group out there right now :glare:. And conservative Christian implies a specific political party.

Oddly enough, I just read an article that discusses the evangelical (theologically/politically conservative) and mainline (theologically/politically liberal) divide, along with a blog post that discussed a third category, that of confessional Protestant, who usually gets ignored b/c their defined religious beliefs *don't* lead to defined political positions (so they aren't politically active as a church body). It also pointed out that evangelicals and mainliners are actually very similar in that they both hold that their religious beliefs necessarily imply specific political positions - their arguments are over which beliefs and which positions, not whether their religious beliefs do (or should) lead to specific political beliefs in the first place.

I see that more as confessional than liturgical - says the church has certain explicitly defined beliefs, and they are not up for debate or change.

I'd only call myself a conservative Christian if I were both theologically and politically conservative. And honestly, even though I am both (more or less), I *still* don't call myself one b/c to me the connotation of "conservative Christian" is one whose theology kinda *requires* being politically conservative. Liberal Christian says likewise to me - both theologically and politically liberal, implying that one's liberal theology led to one's liberal politics. That's how I see those terms used most, anyway - I don't care who claims them, but if you don't fit the above, you might be misunderstood :tongue_smilie:. Anyway, I'm a confessional Lutheran, which says zero about my politics ;), and I'm good with that.

:iagree: (Except I'm a confessional Lutheran ;).)