Thank you. You answered that better than I did.

I didn't say it was the universal Christian view. I said it was the traditional, orthodox view. Original sin is an aspect of Reformed theology, but it was also widely held by the early Church fathers. Concupiscence (which is the innate tendency to sin) was part of the argument developed by Augustine of Hippo in support of original sin, in response to the Pelagian heresy, which taught that men have the ability to choose to follow the perfect moral example set by Jesus Christ. At any rate, your points about the implications of that worldview are well taken. There certainly are people who think that way. I believe Christians are called to alleviate temporal suffering (which is an effect of sin and the Fall) in whatever ways possible, whether that's through medicine or peace treaties or whatever. Compassion ministry was a large part of Jesus' time on Earth. Knowing that all will not be fully restored until he returns does not preclude doing what we can in our limited means now. I know of very few Christians who believe we can usher in the second coming by allowing the Middle East to go up in flames; that is on God's timing, not ours. So it makes sense to encourage and work for peace now, while knowing that peace will not fully be achieved until he comes.

Well, it certainly would explain how Jesus was able to live a sinless life when no other person can. I'm not sure how that theory impacts the whole fully human, fully divine thing, though. Then again, I'm not sure anybody understands how that works. :confused1:

I didn't mean to upset anyone. I'm merely stating the traditional, orthodox Christian understanding of original sin.

Yes, I would agree with that as well.

Not to shift the subject, but I find this especially interesting in light of the Virgin Birth. If there is, in fact, a genetic element to the sin nature, then it makes sense that a divine Savior would need to bypass that element.

I was an English major, so my understanding of the secular/scientific side of this is probably not up to par. However, from a religious standpoint, I'd answer your questions like this: It depends on what you mean by "innocent." Proponents of the doctrine of original sin would hold that there is no such thing as an innocent child. Because of the fall, all people are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. Humankind *deserves* nothing but the judgment and wrath of God, and it is only by God's grace and mercy that any are saved. Even then, salvation eternally does not mitigate the effects of sin temporally. When talking about original sin, I think it's important to bear in mind the difference between suffering/imperfection/etc. as a result of the Fall, and the same as punishment for specific sin. IOW, while genetic malformations may be attributed to original sin (i.e., the Fall), which resulted in the curse of all creation, they are not dealt as specific punishment for specific sins. (This is certainly a extra-biblical argument, but the very idea that all people post-Fall are necessarily born with a sinful nature would, to me, imply that there was some kind of genetic element to the curse.) In the sense that there is no longer harmony between species, perhaps.The entirety of creation was cursed by the Fall. I don't think the evolution of new characteristics or traits in any given species is mutually exclusive to intelligent design or any of the religious ideas we're discussing. If the bees are any indication, then it seems to me that this type of evolution is usually in response to some sort of conflict or difficulty or pressure on the plant/animal/person. If you have a fully functioning, harmonious, perfect planet, do you get that same kind of differentiation? I don't know. If not, then I suppose you could say that genetic changes are the result of the Fall -- with the Fall resulting in conflict, which in turn results in evolution. :iagree: It's interesting to think through these things and engage with differing points of view. Thanks for posting.

I think there is a difference between what God causes and what God allows. IOW, God allows (for whatever reason) suffering as a direct result of sin and evil in the world, which is not the same as saying he directly imposes it.

90 minutes in the pool this morning. Thinking about trying out one of those 7-minute workouts on my non-swimming days. Anybody done that???

We're in the Triad too! Northern Davidson County near High Point. We're just starting out, but we know lots of homeschooled kids around here who play sports (basketball, softball, etc.) at the local public elementary school. Not sure if that is a district- or school-level decision, or if they're not aware of a state law prohibiting homeschoolers from extracurriculars (if there is one)?

Rice -- usually plain steamed, but occasionally I make my grandma's recipe: 1 cup uncooked rice, 1/2 stick butter or margarine, 1 can beef broth, bake in a covered casserole at 400 for 45 minutes. Terrible for you, but awfully tasty! Roasted potatoes or veggies (squash or zucchini, usually) Steam-in-the-bag veggies Green beans (I use frozen) sauteed in a little butter with minced garlic I also usually fix sides the day of, unless I'm making a casserole, soup, or crock-pot meal that includes everything in one bag.

Thanks for sharing your story. You must be extremely strong to have come through all of that, and it sounds like you have truly been able to minister to some others who have been hurt by the same evils. I had never heard of Bill Gothard before these threads, but he must have a far-reaching influence, or else "interpretations" of scripture similar to his are easy to come to if one is seeking power. I've heard vestiges of these things (especially in regards to women's roles, marriage/dating, etc.) across the spectrum in the evangelical church. Even my parents' (conservative) Methodist church teaches some of this stuff, albeit in a milder form. We left that church a couple of years ago, when we got tired of being berated every week for not being perfect spouses and parents -- unlike, apparently, the pastor, with his "smokin' hot" wife (his words, not mine) and their adorable 2.5 kids and dog. No white picket fence, but hey, the church paid for the house, so I guess that wasn't his fault. The essence of the gospel is the umerited GRACE God bestows to raise those who are dead in their trespasses and sins to newness of life in Christ. Why anyone wants to replace that with a list of which make-up and sanitary products a woman is allowed to use is beyond me.

I've almost finished designing invitations for ds's 3rd birthday next month! It's a construction theme, so I designed a 5x7 card with a dump truck scene. The truck bed will swing open to reveal the party details underneath. After that, I'm starting on party decorations -- and Halloween costumes! DD wants to be the dish that ran away with the spoon, and this is the one I've picked out for ds: ETA: That's NOT ds, just a pic I found on Pinterest!!

I was hoping for more history and fewer demons. I don't mind the religious bent, but I thought the whole deal with the devil at the end was just corny. I'll probably give it another week or two, but it's not looking good. Pity.

Love your ideas and all the suggestions so far. Nicknames for Henry are usually Hank or Harry (although personally, I like Henry better). I like classic, especially biblical, names: Daniel, Peter, Michael, Matthew, Luke. Let us know when you decide! :)

LOL, so glad to be of service. ::takes a bow:: Come to think of it, Nat really does resemble a pig. And I REALLY DON'T know if that makes it better or worse! Never mind their grotesque inappropriateness; I'd forgotten how supremely UGLY they are -- especially Nat!

Okay, but fair warning: You will not be able to unsee this... Say hello to Kitty O. According to her profile, she's "rich and idle," and her hobby is "the pool boy." (Lest you think I'm making this up, Google it yourself.) She was our first treasure. Let's just say I didn't exactly rush home to display her in dd's nursery. I mean, the thing has a bigger chest than I did (and I was post-partum at the time). It was Naughty Nat who did us in, though. She's a "masseuse" (wink, wink) whose hobby is "the bald and rich." Just the role model I was hoping my little girl would have... I never thought I'd need photos of them, as they are positively seared into my memory, so I had to go trolling the interwebs to find them. Interestingly, Nat took quite awhile to locate; apparently she's not popular (who would have thought?). In what world is that an appropriate gift for an 18-month-old -- your first grandchild, no less? But as I learned during my search today, it could, in fact, have been worse. Since this year will be dd's 9th Christmas, we would have racked up quite the collection by now. (Pun intended; I couldn't help myself.) Sadly, they were {ahem} misplaced during our move a few years ago. DD still loves the two rag dolls MIL purchased at the same shop, though. :D

These are hysterical! My MIL takes the cake around here. Fortunately, she's not rude, just... clueless. :glare: When dh and I were dating, she gave me a Precious Moments figurine/Christmas ornament. A sweet little girl, clutching a book to her chest. I'm a bookworm, so this seemed apropos, until I looked closer and saw the book was titled "Baby Names" and the girl was pregnant. (Did I mention I was 15 at the time?) I still feel bad about blurting out -- loudly -- "She's pregnant!" and embarassing my poor MIL. At dd's first Christmas, MIL announced that she wanted to start the baby with some kind of collection. I loved that idea... until I opened the box containing the first of what dh dubbed "the porn kitties." Seriously, these were, um, suggestive porcelain cat figurines. For a 6-month-old. We smiled and said thank you for the first one, despite its copious cleavage. But the next year, when we helped our toddler open a statue of a cat wearing stilettos and leaning against a stop sign (I kid. you. not.), dh had to have a chat with his mom re: appropriate gifts. The worst part was, these things were very high end -- she was spending $100+ on them!

Me too. My husband says I didn't even "play" as a kid, which is probably true. I don't think I even know how. But I don't ever feel as though my kids are missing out on anything, and I don't think they do either. I don't recall them ever asking me to play with them. Sometimes dd gets mopey and lays around the house or stays underfoot and complains of being bored. I tell her the same thing my mother told me: "Find something to do, or I'll find something for you." Of course, if I have to find something, it almost always involves chores, so that usually takes care of it. :) I also tell them that I do not exist to entertain them, that they are bright and creative children and are perfectly capable of entertaining themselves. Even ds (who's almost 3) plays easily by himself and enjoys looking at books or playing cars alone in his room. We spend plenty of time interacting -- swimming, running errands, constantly talking, talking, talking about what we're doing and why -- and I take them to lots of parks, museums, etc., often with friends. But I see my role as providing them with an array of opportunities and tools to be creative on their own, rather than playing with them or directing their play. I will echo what PP have said about screen time. I notice a MARKED downturn in dd's ability to entertain herself when she's had too much time with the TV or video games. Sometimes even a little will do it.

Like others, I was taught to use two, but retaught to use one when I entered the publishing and graphic design industry right after college. And I will strongly second Robin Williams' books for anyone interested in learning desktop publishing! I'll probably teach dc to use one, just because that's my habit now. I'm not grading any typed papers yet, but I'll wager there's a difference between what you need for reading with the intention to correct or edit (such as a paper) and reading for consumption (a finished product like a book or article). So that might, in some ways, account for the difference of opinion. Kind of like why my teachers/professors always wanted things double-spaced -- but you'll never see that in a published work. (And yes, that's two hyphens, because ironically I don't know how to make an em dash on my PC...)

That wasn't just me? Thank goodness.

I have a lowly BA in English with a minor in history (but hey -- I did graduate summa cum laude, so that's something, right?). When I graduated *mumblemumble* years ago, I must have been asked a thousand times if I planned to teach. My response: "Well, I hate kids, so, um, no." And yet, here I am. :laugh: You will NEVER find me in a classroom, though... DH graduated from the School of Hard Knocks. School was always a struggle for him. He had some community college classes (for which I may or may not have done most of his assignments, ahem) and worked alternately as a copier repair man and for various security companies before finally hitting his stride as a sales executive for a national telecommunications company. :iagree: That was my experience as well. College was just what you DID -- it was as expected just as much as high school was. I was completely burned out on school after 12th grade, despite being a good student; I think I really could have used a break. But I was terrified NOT to go to college. I thought I would miss out on some transcendent experience or something. In the end, I wound up transfering to another school so I could pick up more credits from my high school AP classes and graduate in three years instead of four. We got married a month after I graduated. I don't regret my college experience (and I do think there are important aspects of the college experience that have nothing to do with academics), but neither do I regret finishing up and getting on with life. I can't see myself ever going back. DH and I do not have the same expectation that my parents did, that our children will automatically go on to college. I think the value of higher education depends in large part on a person's ultimate career goals. Some careers (e.g., doctor, lawyer, engineer) are dependent on a degree; others aren't. I think the belief that a lot of my generation seemed to grow up with -- i.e., that a college degree = a good job = money/success/security/happiness -- is proving to be a myth. Many of my highly degreed friends are unemployed. I also don't think a degree makes one iota of difference in my ability to teach my kids. I am very adept at teaching myself. I don't know where/how I learned that skill, or if it's just innate to my personality, but I think the willingness and ability to self-educate overwhelmingly trumps the degree. Bearing in mind that "ability" implies a certain competency in basic skills, of course.

I have a Cricut, but REALLY wish I had waited and gotten a Silhouette. It may be more expenseive up front, but I think it will save you money in the long run. Cricut cartridges are ridiculously expensive! I have only bought a few because I can't afford to shell out $20-$40 or more a pop just to get the one or two images I want. Silhouette is much more economical in that respect. You can hook your Cricut up to your computer, but you can only cut the images you already own a cartridge for. Silhouette connects to your computer and allows you to cut anything -- including free clip art you find online, fonts, etc. At least, that's my understanding. Since I design my own art in Adobe Illustrator, that would be a huge bonus for me. If you decide Cricut is the way you want to go, I'll sell you mine for a good price. :thumbup1: It's practically new!

We're just starting too. My dd is 8 and entering third grade. I really like the idea of covering history in three four-year cycles, but clearly we're two years behind on that. We decided to do a two-year history/literature survey based on the suggestions in WTM, then start over with the ancients in 5th grade and use a slower, more in-depth pace. At least, that's the plan right now. To me, it makes the most sense to "begin at the beginning," so to speak, and work our way through, although I know there are many here who do history on longer or shorter cycles and don't necessarily follow SWB's schedule. That's okay too -- it's all about what works best for your family. Having an extra year, you obviously could work at a slower pace than we are planning on. Maybe combine ancient/medieval this year, and space out the renaissance and modern periods over the two remaining years, for example. We are using SOTW for our spine, but since we can't cover everything in just two years, we're focusing on western civilzation for now and will pick up some of the other material in middle school. My dd likes a quick pace, so I think this will work fine for her, but your ds's needs might be different. We will be keeping literature and history together, just because I like that continuity. It's part of the reason I decided to stick with WTM instead of going with a package curriculum. So, this fall we'll be reading some things that are suggested in WTM for first-graders. SWB makes a point of saying that all literature suggestions in the grammar stage section are appropriate for grades 1-4, regardless of the period of history they relate to, so I have no qualms about using things from all four periods. Being older and somewhat advanced, my dd will be able to read most everything on her own, whereas some suggestions for first grade would need to be read aloud for most first-graders. For science, we decided to focus on chemistry, which is the suggested third-grade topic in WTM. Mostly, this is because I felt like she already had gotten decent exposure to the life and earth sciences in ps, and I wanted to cover chemistry (and next year, physics) as well at the grammar stage. I am not a science-y person, so I admit this is one area that I won't put as much energy into at this point, but since they were only doing science sporadically in ps, I think I can do as well as they do. :) Of course, we will also try to take advantage of science/nature opportunities as they present themselves -- like the babies our friends' rabbit just had. We start on Monday, and I fully expect to have to make some tweaks along the way, but the beauty of homeschooling is being able to adjust as we go along. I do know how you feel though -- it was very overwhelming to me at first too, especially trying to figure out how to start in the middle. I felt like, no matter what, we were going to "miss out" on something. But I keep reminding myself that we will come back to all of this stuff again in a couple of years, and there is plenty of time! Again, you should definitely go with your gut and do what you think will work best for your particular child. But I hope this helps! Good luck!

Sounds fascinating! Thanks for the tip -- and thanks, VaKim, for the link. I searched my library catalog before I read all the way down and was disppointed they didn't have it.