Julie Herbster
-
Posts
187 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Julie Herbster
-
-
Right. Because of one man's decision, the will of the many was disregarded. That is what I mean when I say that the American judge wields more power than any number of voters put together. No matter what most Americans think about this issue, judges can make their own binding decisions based on their own personal interpretations of the Constitution, establishing completely new precedents. No one else in America has this kind of power. It really bears a resemblance to tyranny (or several small tyrannies), if you think about it.Judges don't make law, they interpret existing law. They use the Constitution as the basis for many of their decisions. The recent California marriage protection law was thrown out by the judge on the basis that it was against the Constitution.But if you are outlawing behaviors because they are against your religion (and I've seen ZERO argument against homosexuality other than it's condemned in The Bible) then how are you not mandating religion?
The extremist Islamic governments in question also mandate behavior-wearing the veil, not listening to music, banning lots of books and movies, etc. Those are the sorts of laws I was referring to.
Extremist Islam nations mandate religion: non-Muslims risk major persecution (even at times, death) in those countries. An amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and woman is not the same as the religious oppression of Islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree?
No, actually, I wouldn't.
Do you think that homosexual people are as persecuted by our government as are those in Muslim countries who do not follow the Islamic religion? Are they imprisoned simply for being homosexual? Executed?The fact that our government has not until now allowed homosexuals to unite in marriage (a term that has for millenia described only committed heterosexuals) is IMO not "persecution" at all. The burden of proof would seem to rest on the homosexuals to make the case that "marriage" means something different than it has since the beginning of time.
My question is this: where does the Constitution (or any other authority) guarantee the "right to marry" to homosexuals? Would you also defend the "right" of adult men to marry thirteen-year-old girls, or the "right" of a man to have many wives (why doesn't a judge find child protection and "consenting adults" laws unconstitutional--he could, you know, if he wanted to, because these matters are not addressed in the Constitution, either)?If we were to use the Constitution which clarifies the rights of the citizens to take away rights that would be abhorrent to me and against everything I was ever taught the US stands for. I don't intend to stand by as a citizen of this nation while people's rights are taken away. Because sooner or later my rights would be in danger as well.O.K....I don't think I've ever spent this much time on a discussion forum before! I have a headache. For the rest of the evening, I will be on the couch reading from my Victorian Ghost Stories anthology. Perhaps I'll peek in here again in a day or two if the discussion is still alive. Have a great evening, everyone!
-
You've been doing a lot of thinking! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. If you look closely enough, I suppose Cinderella and Snow White carry the "good vs. evil" theme. (Bad witches lose; good girls--Cinderella works hard and is humble; Snow White is sweet--win in the end.) Although my dc have read many different versions of the "princess heroine" stories, I do limit their exposure to the "Disnified" movie versions for the same reasons you mentioned here. (And we actually discuss those things.)I read these quotes recently and I am really conflicted.Children already know that dragons exist.
Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.
-G.K. Chesterton
If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales.
If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.
-Albert Einstein.
What do you think classifies as a Fairy Tale? I have chosen to not let my daughters watch or read Cinderella or Snow White or any of those stories because I feel like the moral is "if you really luck out (and you are pretty) you will get rich and a man will rescue you." I am a Christian so I think God is our rescuer, and think WAY too many women look to men or looks or money to solve their problems. Even if I wasn't a Christian though, I think these stories would offend feminists!
Three cheers for the Arthurian legend!As an English teacher I taught the Arthurian Legend and that was more a battle between good and evil that I could get on board with.
Tolkien and Lewis's fanciful tales are in the same vein as Arthurian tradition, as epic struggles between good and evil--gotta love 'em! I also like Lloyd Alexander's Prydain trilogy and John Christopher's Tripod trilogy (ate those up myself as a junior higher). I hear the Redwall series is good, too, but I haven't read them yet.What are some fairy tales that you like? Please help me think through this. -
I know this question was not directed at me, but I don't think any one person is "mandating" anything for anyone else. That is not possible in our government, a democratic republic. Everyone has a voice and a vote. If any one person has more power than he should have to "mandate" anything, it is the individual renegade judge who makes decisions according to his own personal interpretation of the Constitution, circumventing the lawmaking process by, in effect, establishing an entirely new "law" all on his own. Certainly, b/c of our system of checks and balances, the people may take "lawmaking" action by their votes, but no one person is more powerful than the American judge.OK, so let's say the other gods are false. What *else* would you like to mandate for people who don't believe the same as you?
I may have missed something. If so, please direct me...but where did anyone say that "religion should be mandated by law"? The law should not mandate religion; it should mandate behavior. Extremist Islam nations mandate religion: non-Muslims risk major persecution (even at times, death) in those countries. An amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and woman is not the same as the religious oppression of Islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree?And isn't this *exactly* why most people in this nation are against the Islamic extremist governments in *other* countries because we *don't* think religion should be mandated by law? You can't have it both ways. The majority religion gets to mandate religion or they don't. -
I infer here that you feel our laws should be built on the tenet that homosexuality is wrong and that it is a behavior which can be corrected or chosen. Is that correct?
I believe that good (righteous) laws are based on an alignment with the Creator's rules.
By definition, our nation is a democratic republic. Ours is "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." The laws of this nation, for better or for worse, reflect the values of its people. Certainly, people should not be forced to vote against their beliefs. I'm not advocating that at all. Everyone has been given a free will by the Creator, to choose His ways or not.
I do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that it is chosen. I do not think it can be "corrected" in any other way than any other sinful behavior can be "corrected" (I would use the words "forgiven" and "forsaken"). To me, the word "corrected" implies some kind of deformity, physical abnormality, or chronic health problem. According to the Bible, homosexual behavior is none of these things. I believe that, just as all of us have been born sinners, with tendencies/weaknesses toward committing specific kinds of sin (laziness, addiction, greed, etc.), one could be born with tendencies toward homosexuality. The good news is that none of these sins are unforgivable!
Aye, therein lies the rub. (See my previous posts.)In whose reality? -
If He did, it is not recorded in Scripture. His mission was not to change society, but to die for the sins of the world. He certainly commented on the duties His followers had to government (pay taxes, obey the laws), but social reformation was not on His agenda.At the time homosexuality was extremely common practice amongst the Romans. Did He suggest His followers do something to stop it?
I like how you put that! I'll have to remember that! I agree. My point (with which I think you agree) is that our country's laws are founded on underlying principles...principles not just of justice, but of morality. Certain behaviors are right, and certain behaviors are wrong. On top of this foundation, we build law. Certainly, there are those "housekeeping" laws that are necessary to govern large nations that have a little less to do with these underlying principles (like, for example, mandatory carseat usage), but they do still relate to the underlying values.The right to swing your fist ends at my face. That's where secular laws come into play. That's why murder is illegal.
Correct. Who decides what "people's rights" are?Just as in another recent thread I have to call up the idea that the Constitution's purpose is to prevent the Tyranny of the Majority. The majority's will does not take precendent over people's rights.
In reality, the whole universe is a theocracy, with God on the throne. He has communicated to us (both in our hearts and in His Word) "His rules," and He has also given us the power to choose whether or not we will align ourselves under those rules.I certainly believe there is a Creator who has spoken on the issue but I realize that not everyone believes in my God and that we do not live in a theocracy. -
Should we be OK with a government which allows murder, or encourages injustice? Why or why not? Do you think it is all right for a government to make laws that are not just "different," but diametrically opposed to the Creator's rules? Don't you think the best government would make laws in keeping with the rules set up by the Creator of the universe, since by abiding by those ultimate rules, a government could be nothing but in harmony with the Source of all things good?Even Jesus recognized that Caesar's laws would not be the same as God's laws. Even He left room for separation of religious laws and earthly, secular laws. But you cannot?The point of Jesus's comments about money and Caesar is that His followers should pay taxes, not that government should make laws opposed to the Creator's laws.
Our government (theoretically) is the people itself. We are the government. Voting against same-sex marriage is not voting "for" or "against" government. It is exercising our right to govern. The way that we vote (govern) on this issue reflects the belief system with which we align ourselves. Either there is a Creator God who has spoken on the issue, or we are left to our own reasoning and devices.
-
"Our God" is not just the "God of the church." As the Creator of our world, He has the right to make the rules for His whole creation. It is not about us "blocking" or "excluding" anyone; we simply align ourselves with God's rules, not our own. That (the basis for who has the right to make the rules about marriage) is the farthest we can go in this discussion.Why in the world not just let more people in? Be inclusive, not exclusive. If you think your god won't like it then set parameters in your church. But please stop blocking this on the outside of your church. -
Interesting take on this...How do you know this is what he referring to in this specific passage? What in the text drives you to believe this?Oh yes, Romans 1. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how that escaped my attentions. Paul is discussing a group of Romans who were Christians and left the faith for Paganism. They participated in an orgy. Something quite common in those days. He's condemning what they did. All of 'em piled up there nekkid and all.
These are loaded questions that bring other issues to the table. Suffice it to say that no one is making any Scripture "more important" than any other. Context is important.Why is this suddenly more important than say, the passages regulating slavery, or those that require prostitutes to be burned alive? Those that advocate genocide and those that require the victim of rape to marry the rapist? Shall we execute non-virgin brides?
How do you explain these phrases (emphasis added)? "Even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty for their error which was due." The syntax of these sentences show an obvious contrast between "the natural use of the woman" and "burning in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful."I don't have to spin the Bible. It's very clear... Paul saw the Greek temple and didn't like what he saw. The former Christians gave themselves over to a whiz-bang orgy with men and women all together at the same time. How is this a condemnation of the homosexual person himself?Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.It is correct that someone who is guilty of this kind of behavior should not sit in judgment against another person who is; that is hypocrisy, pure and simple, which is what this verse is condemning.
-
TXMomof4, I can see that we most likely have a similar view on this topic. One question, considering the following material from your post:
Would you be opposed to the idea of, say, two sisters, or a mother and son, or people in other kinds of nonsexual relationships forming "civil unions" in order to receive legal benefits? Where would this end?I can see civil unions between same sex couples allowing them the legal benefits. No argument there, but why does it have to be called a marriage? That is a religious covenant first, then a legally recognized situation. A civil union could provide the same benefits legally without trying to change what marriage is and has been for centuries. I understand historically marriage was a contract between families, etc, etc, but the basic idea of it has always been man + woman = marriage. -
Right...This is all I was saying.Ok... there are several issues that I can see and they've been spelled out much better than I can in the posts above. Yes, I agree, for those that are convinced that homosexuality is wrong there can be no middle ground.
I would LOVE to comment on these passages, as well as on Romans 1:18-32 (which I am surprised that you did not include, since it seems to be the most obvious one on this topic). But, not having a lot of time to continue on here just now, I'll satisfy myself by merely saying that you are mistaken that in Leviticus, dietary rules are listed in the same verse as the one forbidding homosexual behavior. As a matter of fact, all of chapter 18 is about laws for sexual behavior...not an animal mentioned in the whole chapter, other than in the verse forbidding bestiality. (Maybe you were thinking of a different reference?) In 1 Cor. 6, both the terms "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" express disapproval of homosexual behavior. Also, you might want to check out Romans 1:18-32--It would take some pretty good spinning to get past that one! :tongue_smilie:There are three specific passages that this belief is based upon. The first is in Genesis, chapters 18 and 19....<<snip>>....The next mention of homosexuality is in Leviticus....<<snip>>....The only passage that can still be used is in 1 Corinthians 6 -I will try to get to the rest of your post later...So much to be said, so little time to say it!
-
Thanks for your post, GretaLynne. I'll try to address your ideas.
You are probably correct on this one. I cannot say for sure that you are, since, for example, Hindu practice seems to fly directly in the face of the Golden Rule.In my examination of whether or not there are "moral absolutes" I have come up with only ONE: "The Golden Rule". Every religion and every secular philosophy on this planet has always come up with this same rule, though worded somewhat differently.Here's where you lost me:
In defining "morality," you appear to have used the term in its own definition, and are perhaps guilty of circular reasoning..."Treating others as we wish to be treated" is "moral" because "morality" is "treating others as we wish to be treated." What is lacking here is a solid definition of "moral behavior."I think it is the basis for all morality, because we act morally towards others when we have empathy with them, when we realize that they, like us, wish to be happy, and do not wish to be unhappy or to be harmed. So when we treat others the way we would wish to be treated, we are behaving morally.Your attempt at a definition of morality is based only on "how you would have others treat you." It is not an objective standard, but a subjective one, correct? Theoretically, an action that is "moral" for you might be "immoral" for someone else. This standard (of morality) cannot be applied to anyone but yourself...IOW, you cannot ever call anyone else's actions definitely "immoral"...just your own. Please correct me if I'm not representing your view accurately.
I totally agree that the Golden Rule is a wonderful "guiding principle" in life for personal actions.When we treat others in a way that we would not wish to be treated, we KNOW on some level, even if we don't like to admit it, that we are behaving immorally. I try to let the Golden Rule be my guiding principle. Sometimes I succeed at it better than others, but it is my guiding moral principle, my one moral absolute that I believe in most passionately.
GretaLynne, I'm going to change your wording here to see how far you want to go with this line of reasoning. NOTE: The following are not the words of GretaLynne. They are of my own construction. When I try to mentally put myself in the shoes of someone who wants to engage in necrophilia or bestiality (sex with the dead, or with an animal) and share a sexual bond with someone or something they love, and then they're told they can't because the person or animal they love is dead or of a different species, I can feel that hurt. I have no wish to inflict that pain on someone, so my moral conscience leads me to conclude that since sexuality is a deeply personal decision, and since people are different, sexual preferences are going to take many different forms. And while one form may look more comfortable or natural or acceptable to me than another, it would be immoral of me to impose my ideas on others.When I try to mentally put myself in the shoes of someone who wants to exchange vows and share a marriage bond with someone they love, and then they're told they can't because the person they love is of the same sex, I can feel that hurt. I have no wish to inflict that pain on someone, so my moral conscience leads me to conclude that since marriage is a deeply personal decision, and since people are different, marriage is going to take many different forms. And while one form may look more comfortable or natural or acceptable to me than another, it would be immoral of me to impose my ideas on others.IMPORTANT NOTE #2: I am not in any way, shape or form equating same-sex marriage with necrophilia or bestiality. I'm just seeing if you apply the Golden Rule principle consistently, as your only sure basis for morality, and how you decide what is "moral" or "immoral" when interests conflict.
No, I don't believe that acceptance of different kinds of marriage is necessarily based on a lack of a moral conviction. I just think (saying this again at the risk of over-repetition) that we have different definitions of the basic terms of this discussion (morality, sexuality, and marriage, mainly). Your post reinforced this fact in my mind.I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this. I get the impression you think that acceptance of different types of marriage is based on a lack of a moral conviction. Perhaps I am wrong. But if that is what you think, I just want you to know that it very much IS a moral conviction which leads me to support gay marriage. My moral principle is that I must treat gay couples the same way I would wish to be treated. And I would want to be free to choose my marriage partner myself, without having to get anyone else's approval. -
See my post elsewhere. :) Do you mind if I pass? :D
Not a problem, Pam. Hope you can relax and "reset."
-
Thanks for the clarification, Pam. I never assumed or meant to insinuate that you are a relativist. Would you mind sharing upon what you base your definition(s) of marriage? Do you believe that there is "one right view" of marriage?Oh, I do believe that some definitions have more value than other definitions. But it feels -- and I could be very wrong -- that because I'm not using your definition, I'm a relativist and have no moral moorings. I feel the discussion is shut down before it can even take place because of what you assume about my perceived relativism (perceived as present because I'm not Christian). -
Pam, I think we posted at the same time. I wasn't attempting to "define" you personally...in fact, I purposely left the names off of the quotations I selected to show the difference in thinking. If I misrepresented you, I apologize. Certainly, misrepresentation is a huge stumblingblock to a rational discussion.I think you and I might have a harder time with such a discussion because you have defined who I am and what I believe before we even speak and even have a term, complete with scare quotes, with which to describe me. (And I'm not sure you meant the term as complimentary.)
Maybe you missed my point. I'm probably not expressing myself as clearly as I had hoped. Certainly we can have a rational discussion about the meaning of marriage--let's go for it! But we can't discuss "same-sex marriage in America" until we've established that important point. If "marriage" means something different to you than it does to me, we are at an impasse, discussion-wise.What's the point of all this education in logic and reason and rhetoric if we can't have rational discussions with those who disagree with us? I agree that our typical talking media heads and our public school systems eschew rational discussion.
Did I label anyone as "unregenerate?" Does "post-modern" have a generally negative connotation? I apologize if I have offended anyone. I merely used the term "post-modern" to describe a way of thinking that acknowledges no absolutes. If I over-generalized or broad-brushed anyone, again, I apologize. I certainly don't mean to belittle anyone's opinion. My point was that I fear that different parties are talking past each other, and I attempted to explain why I think that is true.How are you going to manage to do that if you don't open yourself up to the question? How will you compel them to think you even care if you won't listen to them, when you pigeonhole them immediately as unregenerate and post-modern? -
It's not that I disagree with you. (Have I said that? ;)) I do get the idea that you believe the definition of marriage (or gender identity, for that matter) is relative--or that it has no definition that is any more important than any other definition. Am I correct? (I don't want to assume anything.) I would love to attempt a rational discussion!Julie, it's ok. There's no obligation at all to answer my or anyone else's post with whom you disagree. Some of us, though, will continue to discuss and refine our understanding.Oh, and I meant to say this with a smile. :)
-
Let me see if I can understand what you are saying here.That people with different world views can not rationally discuss this. Rational people can rationally discuss difficult issues. Irrational people can't. It's a simple as that.Is this what you are saying?--> A Christian who believes that God instituted marriage between one man and one woman for the reasons explained in the Bible can have a rational discussion about same-sex marriage in America with someone else who believes that "marriage" has no inherent meaning.
If that is what you are saying, how is rational discussion possible? There is no agreement of terms to base the discussion on. It would be like a mom trying to teach algebra to a child without having established that "equal" means "the same."
I don't know which perspective you're coming from, but you might be saying that rational discussion between a Christian (as described above) and a "post-modern party" (as described above) cannot take place because the Christian is not rational at all, but is basing her beliefs on faith.
-
Gay marriage doesn't threaten God-designed, heterosexual marriage; it MOCKS it, and to me, that's worse... You can guess my opinion.Personally though, as a Christian, homosexual practice is immoral and therefore not something *I* will participate in or promote to my children as a healthy lifestyle. I cannot control others' actions or beliefs and I wouldn't want to, we are each accountable for ourselves and our actions...I vote to voice my opinion which is based on my beliefs of right and wrong.
OIL...and WATER
To me personally, it just means two people committing to share their lives. But I also realize that to some people it can mean more than two people sharing their lives.
In our society, gay men [ETA: and women] have played straight for generations just to be marginally accepted by society, to not be disowned by families they adored and were adored by. If they didn't feel forced into living a lie, to making the desperate attempt to please their god and their fellow man by making "righteous" choices (marrying, procreating, attempting to pass, attempting to at least DO the "right" thing), would they be so hurtful?
I think you see it differently when it is personalized.
Neither of us are religious and we've both seen so many failed marriages in our friend's parents growing up that the idea of "marriage" signifying an everlasting commitment doesn't hold.
Just to be clear, I'm not calling anyone names. I'm just elaborating on my previous point that a rational discussion cannot be had between parties with two mutually exclusive worldviews...with two totally different starting places--unless the discussion is about "the definition of marriage."
In a discussion such as this one, people (on both sides) can bolster their own arguments by citing "experiences" and "backgrounds." Pragmatic arguments of all kinds can be used. However, we will continue to talk past each other (and get nowhere) unless the real question is dealt with: what is marriage? Parties disagreeing on this point can have no discussion on any kind of marriage.
-
I think you've made two valid observations here, Scarlett. It is difficult to have a conversation or discussion about "marriage" if that term remains undefined. So, who gets to define it? Who defined it in the first place? Only after answering these very basic questions can we answer "who gets to set the standard."Wrong behavior is wrong behavior even if you like the wrong do-er....<<snip>>....So again we are back to 'Who gets to set the standard.' Apparently most who have responded to this thread pretty much think everyone should be allowed to set their own standard.Those speaking from a post-modern viewpoint (truth is relative) will say that it doesn't matter--there is no "definition"; everyone should decide for themselves what is true and right; what is true/right for someone else may or may not be true/right for me. I should not argue that there is an absolute answer to this dilemma, because there really are no absolutes anyway. It's all good.
Those speaking from a Judeo-Christian/biblical perspective cannot allow this. They will say that God created and instituted marriage for the reasons found in Scripture (and they know what those are). Unlike the post-modernists, they have a definitive starting place, an absolute definition.
These two parties cannot rationally discuss this matter, because they are on two totally different wavelengths when it comes to the basic definition, let alone the ramifications of that basic definition.
Simplistic? Sure. I've left out a ton of people--for example, those Christians (and other religious adherents) who can somehow divorce the Biblical (or other holy writings) standard from day-to-day application. These people are IMO neither reasonable nor logical; they try to synthesize two mutually exclusive worldviews--philosophies that mix as well as oil and water.
There are a couple of groups that I'd be interested in hearing more from. One is the group who have asserted that, although it would be "immoral" for them to engage in same-sex marriage, they believe that it is all right for those who do not believe same-sex marriage to be immoral to go ahead and engage in it. What rationale is behind this opinion?
Another is the group who have stated that, although they are against "same-sex marriage," they are not against "civil unions." Could someone explain this idea?
-
Well, I haven't made it to the swing yet...I've been rehearsing dc on string instruments...almost done. Think I'll be grabbing a Diet Coke and relaxing while the house goes to pot.
-
When I read it, I didn't detect any "agendas," other than helping homeschooling moms with the goal of life organization. Maxwell doesn't read like Ezzo, if that's what you're wondering. She does give tips for baby schedules, but she's not pushy about it (at least not that I can remember). I think it would be a helpful book for you to get. As with anything, "eat the meat and spit out the bones." Take her ideas and adapt them to your own lifestyle and family.
Good luck!
-
...I entered the library planning to check out for myself a couple of informational books on American exploration, and maybe a biography or two. But somehow the only books (for me) that ended up in my bag were two Agatha Christie mysteries and a 600-page book entitled Victorian Ghost Stories. (I should not have passed through the fiction section!)
What a bad homeschooling mom, huh? The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak! :tongue_smilie: Porch swing, here I come!!!!!
-
:grouphug: Here's some more support :grouphug: from someone who has been to the point of burnout as recently as last week. I just decided to end school for the present. Dc and I had worked hard for nine months. They had finished all of their core curriculum. I just decided to be done with this year even though (gasp!) there were a few spelling and Latin lessons left at the end of the book. We'll continue reading together (history), and I'll sit and enjoy hearing my 5yo dd read to me daily, but other than that, I'm done for now. (We'll start all of the summer stuff--library reading programs, maintenance work, etc.--in a few weeks.)
-
I'm age 34...middle name is Ann. (Named my daughter Anne Marie.)
-
Here's what we're planning for next year:
Bible: Veritas Press Gospels (with big sister)
History: Veritas Press Explorers-1815 (also with big sister)
English: Rod and Staff 3
Math: Saxon 4
Spelling: Spelling Workout D
Handwriting: letter practice/copy work/dictation: starting small cursive
Science: undecided
Latin: Latina Christiana I
Literature: suggested reading from Veritas Press book list (offhand...Chronicles of Narnia, Misty of Chincoteague, Charlotte's Web)
Music: continued private piano and cello lessons, children's chorus
P.E.: organized games with co-op, rec league soccer and basketball
Bible
in K-8 Curriculum Board
Posted
We've done different things as well. Our "family Bible time" is usually at night before bedtime, separate from school. Also, the children have their own personal devotions each morning right when they wake up. So, for school, we're a bit more "academic" about the Bible. (That doesn't sound quite right...hope you understand what I mean.) We've loved Veritas Press Bible, which integrates directly into their history timelines. It puts the Bible in historical perspective, as well as applying it. I've learned so much about the Bible that I never really "put together" before...and I've been a Christian all my life!
Blessings on your journey! Don't feel like you have to "do it right" in this subject...If everyone is learning and growing, then you're on the way!