Lol on not using EG. :P The reason we are switching is that DD can DO R&S English, but she is starting to burn out on it. She is very studious and excels and really does not complain, so when she starts to groan about something I know it must be bad. I do like R&S--alot. I thnk it's as solid as solid gets. But I'm not the student. So I was thinking EG just for her to solidify what I think she already knows, and pair it with a writing program like Editor in Chief to start with practical application of the "rules". Thanks for letting me know about the grade level!

anyone?:)

My child is doing R&S 4 English but I am switching to Easy Grammar. There is no self test on the site that I could see, and I need to know which EG book she'd be in if she is half way through R&S 4. Thanks! :)

Haven't checked the weather for today, but 2 days ago it was 112. We're in Vegas.

Big ((hugs)) to you! We will have 7 in the fall and yes, I have had less than thrilled feelings at the very beginning sometimes, maybe because I get so sick. My DH is always thrilled. He's such a good man. But yes, I also shoulder most of the discipline and sometimes have to remind him that what his son just said was not okay. Dh is just very laid back and doesn't always see things the way I do. This time I was as shocked as I could get that I was pregnant again. I am 35 and my youngest was 9 months at the time. We also don't try to get pregnant and would never use hormonal BC. It seems no matter what we do the Lord thinks we can handle one more. Lol! And we don't have a vehicle that will fit us all and have no money to buy another, so we'll be driving 2 for at least a little while. I think our family, even though we never "planned" it, is the biggest blessing I could ever have gotten in this life. I do get overwhelmed, I do HATE it when people count our kids as we walk by. But I have also found that most people are gracious and say nice things. The ones who are rude have problems, not me. Lol. My extended family can be a bit snide at times, but I think the Lord has also really used this to develop a thicker skin in me. That verse about "nothing shall offend them" is one that has come true in my life in the last few years. I used to always be ready for a fight and now I am much less judgemental, much less likely to be defensive, and more likely to extend grace because one never knows what someone is going through. So, in short, it will all be okay. This one will be just as big a blessing as the others. No, life will not always be sunshine and roses, but nor have we been promised that. Sometimes we will want to scream, but trials work patience. You (and God) can do this! :)

I agree that some of the replies are harsh. You're freaked out and just want to know if it's reasonable or not. Honestly, when I read that you're not from there, have moved a lot and are now in that neighborhood together...it's quite creepy. I would be uncomfortable for sure. This is also from a non-stalker who looked up an abusive boyfriend from years ago on Facebook. Was I stalking him? In no way. I took great comfort in knowing he was half a country away from me. Anyway, I do agree that since there's been no contact in 4 years that there's probably no problem. But I don't agree that not seeing him is an indication of anything. Just keep your wits about you, but there again, make sure not to assume much of anything about a guy that has left you alone for this long.

Off the same exit as Legoland (Canon Drive, I believe) is a beach. Legoland is east and the beach is west. I do not remember if the place had outdoor showers.

I need to log off the computer for a few days due to some crazy days ahead, but wanted to answer you, Arcticmom, as to why I do not wear head coverings. The command to do so IS repeated in the NT, however, married women are also giving their husbands for their coverings, and women in general are given their hair for a covering. Based on that, both my husband and I feel that I am covered. If I ever lost my hair and was not married, I would think the Lord would convict me to cover my head in church. The reasoning behind it is the same reason men shouldn't wear hats in church, but women can. The Bible says it's a sign of power for the angels.

I agree, Karen, that we've gotten very far from the topic from the OP. These discussions have a way of doing that. :D I am just so thankful that the Lord came to "seek and to save that which was lost" and that "He came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved". No matter if people believe in Him or not, he still loves them and longs to save. It's because of this love that he's promised to bring his people (the children of Israel) back to Him, and I trust in that. But in regards to the OP, I think your soft heart towards doing what's right by your new friends is admirable. :001_smile:

I'm sorry if it sounded as if I was making generalizations, but I did not mean to imply that some Jewish people do not practice Judaism out of laziness. What I was saying was many of them may have the same reasoning the Bible outlines: that it is *impossible* for us humans to follow the law perfectly. That is what I meant by "impossibly burdensome", not that I was saying "gosh, this is really inconvenient" but that everyone knows they are not perfect and cannot live up to the law. God knows this too, and since it's *His* requirement that there be no sin in Heaven, but we know people go there, there has to be another way. Jesus is that way. I have never lived the life of a Jewish person, but I have studied the beliefs a little bit (studying never replaces real experience), as well as know Jewish people who have been saved. They have not "changed religions" or "switched to Christianity" they have come to Christ, the destroyer of religion in the way that He releases us from ritual and having to "find our way to Him". In Christianity, God comes to man. We earn nothing. We don't earn our way. These Jewish Christians I have heard speak say how when the Lord saved them their burden became light, as they no longer had to "do" anything to gain the favor of God. Christ did it all, and paid for the sins of everyone, Jew and Gentile. So without him, we are judged by the law, which convicts everyone of being imperfect.

Actually, Karen, no I wasn't assuming anything about your salvation, just explaining what the Bible says about why the law was put into place and what Jesus does for us. I also believe that the law may be impossibly burdensome for the Jewish people, which may explain why so many are not practicing Judaism, or practice a secular version of it.

Karen, Old Testament law is no doubt burdensome. But the New Testament tells us that the law was made to show us WHY we need a Savior. None of us have kept even the most basic of laws--the 10 commandments-to perfection. And that's what God requires to get into Heaven--perfection. The law shows us we have no hope of getting to perfection without trusting in the redeeming death of Jesus on the cross. He's the only one perfect enough to get us there, and when we trust in Him, God no longer sees our imperfection, but Jesus's redemption of us. So the law--HEAVY burden to bear. This is why Jesus says "Come unto me, I will give you rest. My yoke is easy and my burden is light".

Lol, Laura! :P wow, I bet THAT was quite a mental picture!

The Lord defined modesty. What to cover or not did not necessarily NEED to be redefined in the NT because the first century Christians understood what was meant by modesty. They knew what was to be covered and that women should look like women and men should look like men. And again, to our modern eye there may seem like there was not any difference in men's and women's clothing, but there was--otherwise why would God say "women should not wear that which pertains to a man"? But all this arguing over semantics is really not the point. What has already been pointed out is that it is about the heart--the heart that is willing to be obedient to the things the Lord has already laid out clearly, and to have a soft heart to listen to Him when He might be convicting us of things that He means for only us. He does not need to lay out the basic guidelines for modesty again, so we need to be obedient in the obvious. But as far as specific things like "pants or not?", only God can tell us what He wants from us and our individual families.

Novagirl--nope. I wear capris about every other day and jeans when they are appropriate (cold!). I've never felt there would be any question as to whether or not I was a woman. I HAVE seen women whose hair is cut like a man's, wearing khakis with a tucked in polo--very clearly taking on a man's appearance. This is what I am saying--women should look like women and be modest. The Bible is clear on that. I've never said at all that pants make a woman look like a man. If I was convicted of that, neither my girls nor I would wear pants, but we do when the situation calls for them. I have been laughing about the "easy access" thing. I asked my husband and he said he never thinks easy access" when he sees me. LOL!! :P besides the fact that he's more interested in what's underneat what I'm wearing than what's on top. So skirts or capris--matters not to him. And I'm sorry, but I can't see the username from here, but it was interesting to get an insider's view of Jewish tradition. :)

Ok..... Biblical dress standards did not suffer from ambiguity. They were actually very specific. But then, I can't really hear your tone, so I don't know if you were making fun or just kidding. I'll just say I am thankful the Lord released us in the age of grace from having to pay attention to our tassels. :)

Not really sure what that had to do with the conversation or even what you are trying to say, but ok, I'll bite: When the Bible was written most of the books were without chapters. There were no verses. So one subject frequently flowed into another, more like a letter than what we know of "book style" today.

I was not one of the ones who said that pants ARE a man's garment. For me the only concept is that women should not look like men, and vice versa. There should never ever be a question if a Christian woman is indeed a woman. Dressing like a man is not becoming to a Christian woman. But it doesn't mean I would never be able to wear garments with legs that are made for women. I am only to look like a woman and be modest.

IMO that verse *doesn't* prohibit women from wearing pants, and yes, you are right, men did not wear "pants" in Bible times, though they did have their own distinct garments. The only thing we can say for sure is that the Lord definitely wants women to look like women and men to look like men, and that we should all be modest. :) Stephanie, who is also wearing capris

I apologize as I cannot find right now where that verse is quoted again in the Scriptures, and it may be that I am wrong about that specific one. I was certain I had read it as a quote in the NT, but if it's not there I do NOT want to misrepresent. Howevern the concept is very clearly there. The NT does talk about "wearing that which becomes a woman of righteousness", how women shouldn't wear there hair or overdress (jewelry and hairdos and fine dress are never said to be wrong, only that they should not overpower the inner man). It also says it's a shame for a man to have long hair, but that long hair is the glory of the woman. Those standards may not be popular today, but the Bible is nevertheless clear: there needs to be distiction between the sexes.

To the lady who asked "why pick and choose?" I would say when in doubt, look to see if the command was repeated in the New Testament. Many of the "tassels and beards" laws were to set the children of Israel apart from the rest of the people in the land, and were then dropped once grace was implemented when Jesus became our once and for all sacrifice. The guidelines for tassels and fabrics were not repeated in the New Testament for Gentiles, and were therefore not a standard we had to keep. But "not wearing that which pertains to a man" was repeated as a command in the NT. This does not mean the OT is "less than" as far as Scripture goes, it just means that there is a distinction between what was for the Jews before grace and what's for Christians after grace.

I can't quote on my phone, but as to the question of men's modesty and wearing things to the knees--yes. My DH, being in the military, has to wear uniform shorts when he exercises and they do come above his knees, but where possible we do see a need for modesty for both sexes. The Bible did not say "don't uncover a woman's thigh" it was said for both (I believe this is how Noah's son sinned against him, by uncovering his thigh). I agree that one sided modesty is ridiculous. Our boys and my husband do wear shorts, but we have not found it a problem to have everyone wear knee length clothing. But nor are we absolutely obsessed with our children behaving in such a way that they can't bend down if it means their thighs will be exposed for a second. We are about the spirit of obedience, not the letter of the law. But also, in my limited study of the whole "male female" clothing thing, men in the Bible actually did wear distinct garments. To our modern eye it may seem as though they wore skirts, but from what I can gather, they did not. It was a male garment. There is another verse in the New Testament about women "not wearing that which pertains to a man"--probably in one of the Timothys--but I think people take it too far when they are being lagalistic and trying to preach as gospel their standards which are clearly an area of Christian liberty. We cannot be the Holy Spirit for people. If I could wear nothing which belongs to a man then I cannot borrow my husband's jacket or wear his t-shirts to bed. I really believe that verse is warning us that we should not look like men, and vice versa.

I've been an independent Baptist all my life. The preference in all my churches has been for women to wear skirts and dresses, but it's never been a requirement (except at one church that did request that at church functions we be dressed in skirts/dresses). I have heard all the reasons behind why some families do skirts and dresses exclusively, but none of them nor the Lord ever convicted me that I was to do it. Growing up, I was not allowed to wear pants except for snow play. it was more for respect for the churches we went to and because my dad was a deacon that we did the no pants rule rather than an actual conviction for our family. I have no problem sacrificing something non-essential to not offend a brother, and am not resentful that we did that. We also did no TV for a year because our pastor was adamantly against TV (we were military and moved a lot, so we had many pastors). My dad did not do these things to impress, but simply to not be a stumbling block. But he also had no problem saying "no" if something were to jeopardize us or not make sense (like my skiing with a skirt over my ski pants like they requested. Lol!) So anyway, neither my mom, sister, nor I adhere to skirts only now. I do *like* skirts and dresses, because like a pp said, they are comfortable, and I DO have a conviction not to wear things above mine or my girls' knees in public ("uncovering the thigh"), but we do wear capris, knee length skirts or dresses, athletic shorts, etc, and feel quite modest doing so.

I don't. I generally don't choose sources I don't trust, and with 3 chapter book readers there's no way I could read every book--we'd never get to the learning!

Thanks a bunch for the prayers! It is a laparascopic, robotic surgery that takes about 4 hours. I am NOT happy about having him under that long. But the alternative had only about an 80% success rate, with more VCUGs in his future. :( so this was definitely the best option. with your son, if it becomes chronic, there might be something else going on. i'll pray there's not!