FWIW, I think my own babies are gross when they come out. I'm not a fan of seeing my own bodily fluids. With my new DS, I'm pretty sure I had him for about 10 minutes, then they wiped him down and checked him out, then I got him back for a while, then they gave him a bath maybe 2 hours after he was born. My hospital actually won't take your babies to the nursery any more, unless they need to for a test or check-up or some kind of medical care. That was a new policy, because when my DD was born (about a year and a half ago, at the same hospital), I was able to send her to the nursery when I wanted to shower.

I think your birth plan sounds good. I recently had a natural birth in a hospital. One thing I found very helpful--and that I think set up a friendly rather than adversarial relationship with the staff--was really focusing on what I wanted, and not on what I didn't want. For me, the big things I wanted were no pitocin, no epidural, and not being stuck on the bed. But, I tried to phrase them positively: I want my labor to progress naturally, I want to use natural methods of pain relief, I want to be able to move around freely. I do think that helped things to go more smoothly. Rather than insisting that I not have the IV hooked up at all times (I was GBS positive, so I did need the IV for antibiotics), I said that I really wanted to be able to freely access the shower, for pain relief and relaxation, and the IV made that a bit difficult. Rather than refusing pitocin (although if it had come down to it, I would have), when my labor seemed to be stalling out, I said that I wanted to do what I could to progress things naturally. Rather than saying I didn't want to be hooked up to the monitor, I said that I really wanted to be up and around for as much of the labor as possible. I found that the staff was just awesome about really partnering with me in finding the best ways to help me get the birth I wanted. (The fact that I had a doula and that my birth was monitored by the CNW on call rather than the OB probably helped.) I do think, though, that going in with the attitude that I was looking for a positive natural birth experience rather than that I was going to have to fight the staff about a bunch of interventions they'd try to push on me made it a lot easier and just generally more pleasant. That's not to say that I think a birth plan shouldn't indicate what you don't want, just that, in interactions with the staff, it can be really helpful to phrase things as positively as possible.

I don't know, I think there's something to be said for that. Mainly, I think the HUGE disparity you see between early readers and more average readers becomes less glaring and less of an issue educationally. When my DS started kindergarten (he was in a charter school at the time), he tested as reading at a 5th grade level. Most of the kids in his class still weren't able to sound out CVC words. That created a lot of problems. His teacher had no idea what to do with him, and he was frustrated and bored. Now, I'm guessing he's still reading about that far above grade level. Given the books he reads, I'd say he's probably reading at middle-school level. But, most of his peers, age-wise, can now read with some degree of fluency. They aren't reading nearly as well as he is, but they can at least read. 3rd grade tends to be when a lot of formal reading instruction stops, and students begin reading more for content (the whole "learning to read" to "reading to learn" thing). Since they're now "reading to learn," even if the reading material is quite easy for them, they'll probably be introduced to some new learning content. We pulled DS from school in November of kindergarten. I would not be comfortable putting him back in in first or second grade. But, third grade and beyond, if homeschooling didn't work out for us, I'd be comfortable putting him in school. I think that he'd have a much easier time adjusting at that point, and wouldn't have the same boredom/frustration problems he had in kindergarten, simply because at that point the content of the reading becomes much more important, and even if he could breeze through it, reading-level wise, he'll still be on a relatively even playing field with his classmates in terms of the concepts and information being presented.

I'm not sure if my DS is gifted in math--he has much more of a natural facility with language than he does with math, although he's quite good at math--but he HATED manipulatives. He basically refused to use them, telling me they were "cheating."

Latin is a dead language, in the sense that it isn't changing and evolving the way that living languages do. That's partly why it is, IMO, a good language to learn, especially as a first foreign language. (I do realize that the Catholic Church does come up with new Latin words, though.) I don't know, I probably would have responded to the woman's comments as if they were a genuine question. Maybe she honestly didn't know that it was possible to pronounce Latin. I'd probably have said something like, "It's not a language people converse in, that's true, but you can still speak it."

The Man in the Moon. I'm pretty sure it's on Netflix streaming right now. I saw that in the movies with my mom and sister when I was in high school, and all three of us were weeping. I started crying about ten minutes into the Lifetime movie Amish Grace, and didn't stop until it was over. But, I watched it the night I got home from the hospital after DD was born, so it's possible some of that was hormones. The last 15 minutes of Juno make me cry.

I just wanted to briefly address this. I think the difference is that, if you ask alcoholics if they feel hated by Christians, they'll say no. In general, their Christian families haven't rejected them; their Christian churches haven't treated them as the worst sinners around and as being responsible for the downfall of civilization; and they don't see Christian public figures going on the news talking about the evils of alcoholics and trying to deny equal rights to people who drink. Same thing with premarital sex. Sure, most people know that premarital sex is considered a sin by Christians. But, I don't know anybody who feels like Christians hate people who have premarital sex. There aren't public campaigns to deny equal rights to people who have premarital sex. People who have premarital sex aren't held up as the worst sinners there are. In fact, in pretty much every church, there are couples living together outside of marriage and having sex, and in most cases it's pretty much just ignored. Plus, they know that they can just get married and all will be forgiven. I was raised in a Catholic home, and I was fully aware of the teaching on premarital sex. But, I didn't feel like the church would hate me or reject me if I had premarital sex. Because, they wouldn't. But, gay people feel hated by Christians. And, let's face it: they have really, really good reason for feeling that way. This isn't just about Fred Phelps. It's about the many, many churches that hold homosexuality up as somehow worse than any other sin. It's about the Christian public figures who go on and on about how homosexuality is destroying the family and our society, without making a comment about divorce or greed or any of the other issues that are much, much more widespread and so more destructive. It's about the families that kick out their gay children, and the churches that seem willing to welcome all sinners except gay people. People aren't stupid: they know the difference between love and hate. And when gay people are saying, over and over, that they do NOT feel loved by the way Christians treat them, but actually feel hated, I think Christians need to take that very, very seriously. I think we need to not only take it seriously, but shut up and listen to them, rather than immediately trying to justify the position taken by so many Christians. And then we need to repent of how much pain we've caused. Whether or not somebody thinks homosexuality is a sin, the amount of pain that Christians have caused gay people absolutely is a sin. It has torn apart families, broken friendships, and caused many people to turn away from God (either because they've been told that God doesn't want anything to do with them until they change, or because they want nothing to do with a God who would inspire hate and prejudice). If Christians who think homosexuality is a sin really did treat it just like any other sin--if they talked about it no differently and no more than they talked about greed or drunkenness or premarital sex or gossip--then gay people would feel no more hated and no less welcomed by Christians than any other group. The reason they do feel more hated and less welcome is because Christians have, in general, elevated homosexuality to some special status as the worst/most destructive/most disgusting/most unforgivable sin, probably because it's the one sin--assuming it's seen as a sin--that, simply due to demographics (gay people make up a very small percentage of the population), most Christians can be completely sure that they aren't and won't be committing.

What about the story of Ananais and Sapphira? It seems like God took their lives in a very direct way. While the Bible doesn't use the phrase "bringing of death" or "taker of life" for God, there are certainly instances where God is portrayed as doing just that.

I don't think the idea is that, because animals do it, it's okay, but that because animals do it, it's not unnatural. Paul describes homosexual feelings as "unnatural passions," and yet we know now that homosexuality is natural for some members of any species. That doesn't necessarily mean it's right (although it obviously doesn't also necessarily mean it's wrong), but it does mean that it would be extremely difficult to describe homosexuality as "unnatural."

Thank you for saying this. I do wonder how many of the people saying that Christians can't be gay have known gay Christians. Several of the most amazing, loving, faithful Christians I've known in my life have been gay. You have REALLY got to love Jesus to stay a Christian when you are gay, given how much crap you are going to get both from Christians who are going to keep telling you what a horrible sinner you are and, unfortunately, also from some gay people who don't understand why you'd stay a part of such a hateful religion.

It totally was! Sorry about that.

I agree with this. I do think a person should be open to having their minds changed (in either direction). But, if a person has read and studied and prayed and, at this point, still really, truly believes that a given behavior isn't a sin, then I don't think they are being disobedient or unrepentant. Personally, I have had my mind changed on a number of issues. I have been convicted, over the years, that sex outside of marriage is a sin, something I didn't initially believe. I also have come to believe that abortion is morally wrong (although I don't support outlawing it for a number of practical reasons), which is absolutely not what I previously believed. I was open to having my mind changed, and over time it was. I think I've also been open to having my mind changed on the issue of homosexuality. I've read different viewpoints on it. I've prayed about it. But, not only has my mind not been changed, I've become increasingly convinced that it isn't inherently sinful. I don't think that's my being willfully obstinate, because I do believe I'm open to the Spirit's leading on this issue. But the Holy Spirit has not led me in that direction.

As weird as it sounds, maybe you'd find waking up earlier to be easier? For me, I don't know if it's my sleep cycle or what, but I find waking up between 6 and 7 to be pretty much impossible. I just cannot get out of bed and am completely out of it for about half an hour if I do manage to. But, I can usually get up between 5 and 5:30 without much problem if I set my alarm for then. I'd experiment a little, and see if it's possible that an earlier time might work better with your sleep cycle.

I'd actually be interested to hear a justification for thinking that a Christian can't think homosexuality is okay. (I'm not talking about whether or not a person can be gay and be a Christian, but just whether a person--for the sake of argument, let's say a straight person--can believe that homosexuality is not sinful and still be a Christian.) What about believing that homosexuality isn't a sin would prevent a person from being a Christian? I don't see anything in any of the historic creeds that demands that people consider particular acts sins or interpret the Bible in a particular way, and certainly people don't have to be right on every single moral/political issue in order to be Christians. As somebody mentioned above, Christians are allowed to be wrong, so even if homosexuality is a sin, would being wrong about that really mean that somebody can't be a Christian? I'm hard-pressed to come up with any reason why just thinking being gay is okay would automatically disqualify a person from being a Christian.

Pretty much, but it's the same "uniform" I've been wearing since I was a teenager. Jeans, a t-shirt, and a cardigan if it's cold. I also have a work uniform: I wear a pair of wide-legged trousers and a button-down shirt. I have two pairs of wide-legged trousers and four button-down shirts, and since I teach two days a week, that gets me through the whole semester.

I see the EOC and RCC as having so much theological and political diversity that they need their own categories. There are liberal Catholics, moderate Catholics, conservative Catholics, etc.

I don't think they're urban legends, but documented cases. The HSLDA has a long history of taking over inclusive state groups and replacing them with religiously exclusive ones, with championing legislation that privileges religious homeschoolers over secular ones, and that defines "actually homeschooling" in a way that is quite narrow. And there's still the political agenda. I will not give my money to an organization that wants to convince me that opposing gay marriage and fighting gun control are somehow necessary to protect my right to homeschool.

In general, most people I know who would identify with "conservative Christian" are both theologically and politically conservative. I have friend who are theologically conservative but politically moderate or liberal, and they would not call themselves "conservative Christians." I'm pretty theologically moderate but really politically liberal. (I'm also really personally morally conservative, in terms of how I live my own life, but that's just my nature and not because I think the things I'm not doing are necessarily wrong.) I wouldn't really identify as a "liberal Christian" because to me that means being on the same page theologically as somebody like John Shelby Spong, and I'm not there. But, I'm certainly a politically liberal Christian, and more theologically liberal than many folks (definitely more theologically liberal than most homeschoolers), even though in my own denomination I'd be very moderate-perhaps-leaning-a-bit-toward-conservative theologically. It's tricky to label people.

When I'm trying to get up early, one thing that really helps me is getting up early enough that I have time to settle into the day the way I like to (for me, that means time to exercise, to have some tea and read, and to maybe get online for a little bit, and get the house straightened up if there's anything out from the night before) before the kids get up. If I wake up and immediately have to start getting breakfasts ready and changing diapers, I'm much more likely to sleep in and let DH handle that. ;) So, for me, I'm a lot more likely to get up at 5:00 than I am at 7:00, because at 5:00 I know I'll have time to myself, but at 7:00 I know that in just a few minutes I'll have at least one or two kids up, if they aren't up already.

Just out of curiosity, are there many cases, outside of custody disputes, where somebody needs to get a lawyer to defend their right to homeschool? I haven't heard of cases like that in the U.S. (at least since homeschooling has been legal). I would think that, should anybody make a legal objection to my homeschooling (and, outside of a custody dispute, I'm not sure what grounds they'd have for doing so), I'd just point them to the law saying I'm allowed to, and it's done. I guess I'm just wondering how realistic this fear of CPS coming to your door is, and whether the HSLDA would actually help you should that happen. I have never heard of CPS coming after a family just for homeschooling, although I have heard of allegations of abuse being made against homeschooling families and then homeschooling becomes part of it.

I said other. When I'm the passenger, it's usually DH who is driving. In that case, I'll adjust the radio, assuming he's not listening to something, and I'll change the temperature if I'm uncomfortable (although I'll usually check first to make sure my change won't make anybody else in the car uncomfortable). But, if it was somebody else driving, I'd probably just leave everything be and deal.

I tend to agree, but I'd say that somebody declaring that a gay person can't be a Christian, or that a person who doesn't think homosexuality is a sin can't be a Christian, is the kind of judgment it's talking about.

I'm a Christian (Episcopalian). I believe that homosexuality is no more inherently sinful than heterosexuality. Like heterosexuality, it can be expressed/practiced in sinful ways, but I don't think it's any different. But, regardless, I don't see how one's view on homosexuality would have any bearing on whether or not they can be a Christian, any more than their view on whether dancing or drinking wine is sinful. Christians differ in their interpretations of all sorts of things in the Bible. Homosexuality is an issue that's open to interpretation. (For example, Walter Wink has an excellent piece on it.) What does it mean to be a Christian? Is there any reason why not believing homosexuality is a sin would keep somebody from being a follower of Jesus? From loving God and neighbor? From confessing Jesus as Lord and putting their faith in him as savior? (Or doing whatever else it is that being a Christian entails--my point is just that I don't think there's any way to conceive of being a Christian that would somehow require that you believe homosexuality is sinful.) Jesus had followers, in his day, with vastly different views on the controversial political issues of his time (zealots and tax collectors and all that). I see no reason to assume that Jesus expects his followers today to all have the same opinion on controversial issues of our day.

Certainly you are entitled to your beliefs and opinion. But, I think it's very, very dismissive to write off the beliefs of those who think that either Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all worshiping the God of Abraham or that all worship is directed, ultimately, to the same God as just being "fuzzy and cuddly." I think a number of people on this thread have given solid historical and theological reasons for believing those things. You can certainly disagree, but I don't think it's fair to just dismiss it as some kind of fuzzy-wuzzy-feel-good fantasy, when people have reasons rooted in history and theology behind their beliefs. Plus, with God, is anything too good to be true? George MacDonald (a very famous universalist, since universalism has come up, as well as a major influence on C.S. Lewis) is said to have responded to the idea of his beliefs being too good to be true by arguing that they were so good they must be true.

I am very hesitant to speak for all universalists. But, in general, Christian universalists do believe that the Bible is true and relevant. They look to the passages that seem to indicate universal reconciliation (for example, I was just reading Colossians 1 tonight, and it speaks of Jesus reconciling all things to himself). Other passages in both the OT and the NT speak of God's desire to save all people, to reconcile all things, and to renew all things. Universalists would interpret passages that seem to speak of eternal torment in light of those passages, whereas those who believe in eternal torment would interpret the universalist-seeming passages in light of passages that seem to support their belief in hell as everlasting punishment. FWIW, many universalists do not deny the reality of hell, just the duration of it. They'd say that hell exists, and people will go there, but that the purpose of hell is remedial, and at some point even those in hell will be reconciled to God. And, universalists can be either inclusivists, and believe that Jesus saves all people in a way that doesn't require explicit belief in him, or exclusivists, who believe that people must explicitly affirm faith in Jesus to be saved (in that case, they believe that people can make that affirmation after death and after time in hell). The main difference between Christian universalists and Christians who believe in eternal torment isn't, IMO, what they believe about the Bible or about Jesus, but whether or not they think that, after death, all chance to be reconciled to God are lost. Most universalists would say that there are indeed "second chances" (and third, and fourth, and fifth...) after death, whereas most Christians who believe in eternal torment would say that there are no second chances after death. That seems to me to be the most fundamental theological difference between the two positions. And that's going really o/t, so I apologize.