WishboneDawn
-
Posts
7,712 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by WishboneDawn
-
-
That's not it. The other one felt a lot more 'fun' and designed to appeal to the child, but that honestly looks really good. I'd prefer something not Christian, but I could work with that. I could probably whip up a program myself but with family upheavals and such, I really need a program to stay accountable too.
Thank you so much for that rec! It's definitely a contender. 🙂
-
1
-
-
I used to post here years ago, but my older kids are grown and my youngest was going to school. We've decided to pull our youngest for a few weeks at least due to a local surge in covid (we have a family member going through chemo with a terminal illness and don't want to risk the time we have left with him) so I'm pulling out all my old resources.
One thing I can NOT find, either on my CDs containing the mountains of curriculum I bought years ago or online, is a nice imitation writing program I used to have. It may have had 'classic' or classical' in the title but I'm not sure. It definitely wasn't part of one of the bigger programs and wasn't as formal as something like CW Aesop.
I remember we'd read a fable, the child would retell it (par for the course, I know), and one of the activities was literally cutting up the sections of the story and letting the child put them back in the right order. There was some clip art in it. It's probably not exactly what I want for my fourth grader but I wanted to take a look at it.
Failing that, I'd love a program that's a good intro to imitation writing. Nothing to expensive or involved. If it's light, I'm fine as I can flesh it out on my own. I'll be using Rex Barks so no grammar is needed.
Thanks!
-
I'm sorry Rosie.
-
Any IB Theory of Knowledge text. The more my daughter and I explore this the more I can't believe this isn't something most Classical homeschoolers use.
We talk about critical thinking, philosophy, teach logic and rhetoric and yet the big kahuna, the umbrella over those things barely gets a mention here.
-
And his grandson Kiefer Sutherland narrated the film I saw.
It's sort of funny because it's often a toss up as to exactly what he's most famous for here: that he's an actor, he's Donald Sutherland's son, or that he's Tommy Douglas' grandson. Poor guy. :-)
-
Just an aside, the man who we Canadians credit for starting health care was Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister.
-
Thank you for the personal attack - calling me small-minded and self-congratulatory. I would like to point out that I answered the OPs question using smoking as an example, but didn't attack anyone here on a personal level.
I smoked for 9 years and quit, so I know that it is difficult to quit. Just saying there is a moral aspect to the choice.
Perhaps the truth hurts?
I apologize. I did not intend it that way. It was awkwardly worded and then further mangling by my Swype keyboard made it seem worse. I should have learned by now that posting from my phone is a bad idea.
My first paragraph was in response to you, The "small-minded and self-congratulatory" comments were meant for those the OP mentioned in her first paragraph. I don't think saying there's a moral element to the choice to quit is small-minded, I think the judgement experienced by the OP are. There may be a moral element to the choice to smoke/quit smoking for some (I'm not sure I'd allow that that is always the case) but to judge people because they smoke or because they're fat or have cancer or asthma...That's when someone goes into the territory of small-mindedness. I don't think that's what you're doing.
-
My apologies for contributing to the derail, Lexi.
-
What about an online course? Maybe he needs to have his assumptions about what is fine challenged by someone other then his mother in order for him to understand?
-
But you can choose to succumb to addiction, or get help/fight it. That is a moral choice that shows strength (or lack) of character.
My husband doesn't smoke anymore but when he did he possessed the same strength of character and same set of morals as after he quit. You may ultimately be right in that it points to some small character flaw but to my mind there's no point in making a moral issue of it.
It certainly small minded and self-congratulatory to assume that whether a person smokes our not tells you anything useful about their character or means they are somehow less then you by some measure as the OP relating.
-
-
As an interesting development on this, the heir Prince Charles said once that he wanted to be Defender of Faith, not of 'the Faith'.
L
That is in fact how the Queen is already known in Canada. We beat you guys to that one!
-
Justin Welby is cool.
He was invited to St. George's, Jerusalem (that's the Anglican Cathedral there, for the 3-part diocese--Jordan, Israel, and Palestinian Territories). The dear woman who is hospitality minister at St G's found him walking up the street to the Cathedral just before he was scheduled to arrive. She didn't recognize him. She politely inquired if he needed any help--he extended his hand and said, "Hi, I'm Justin. Nice to meet you."
Hi, I'm Justin.
Just so nonpretentious! She realized right away WHICH Justin he was, and took a bit of a breath, and welcomed him in and got him situated.
Now, in our Sunday service, whenever we reach the part where we pray by name for the Archbishop, dd and I wink at each other and mouth, "Hi! I'm JUSTIN!"
:laugh:
That's awesome. :D
And it reminds me of an EFM meeting...
This was a few years back. Our group was led by my male minister and had, I think, only one other guy at the time. There were several ministers taking the course and then we had the Bishop of our diocese visit us this one day.
This was the day where all of my ideas about ministers and bishops being somehow apart from and above regular folks got exploded real good.
We did theological reflection. Someone told a story, we explored thoughts and feelings, came up with a metaphor. The metaphor was passing a woman your sweater to wear around her waist when you notice she's having her period and, er, leaking. Lay people, ministers and bishop all thoroughly explored the metaphor. The guys got a very in depth education that day about all things related to menstration. And we came out of it finding a piece of scripture that spoke to that metaphor. My minister maintains that theology tends to get a lot earthier when there's a majority of women, Bishop, minister or whatever. :)
So we discussed having our periods with our bishop and did some excellent theological work because of it. I think that's an awesome argument for ordaining women right there. :D
-
It is overly simplified and I am biased. My sympathy is limited for those who choose to break the communion and then also want to take church property with them. The amount of money spent in litigation is, to me, pretty easy to understand. It should be clear to those congregations considering leaving the communion that they can't take CoE property with them.I find this overly simplfied and many issues not clarified nor the extreme amounts of money going into litigation from the Nathional Church examined. I don't think this could be accurately explained much less debated on a home schooling board with non episcopalians.
It could be debated here. It need someone on the other side of the fence though since, as you pointed out, I'm not presenting a fair and balanced view. I'm pretty biased.
ETA: No, let's not debate it here. There's enough info on the internet for any that are curious. And it would seriously cramp my style in this thread. :D Besides, I might not win the debate and THAT can not be allowed to happen.
-
I cannot recall you ever denying ethically troubling content found within the pages of the bible. I'm curious though, to what historical document are you referring here? What did Teannika explain that was historically incorrect? Okay, that doesn't sound right. I contend none of this is historically correct, but for the sake of argument, you're suggesting the bible does contain historical documents and that Teannika picked through those that suited her beliefs. I'm curious about the historical, documentary nature of these texts. For the record, I would agree with her (Teanikka) that she is not "cherry picking," but that she is reading the bible "as a whole." The problem comes when her "whole" differs from your "whole." But who's to say she's cherry picking and not you?
Historically speaking, the Jews were villainized, and subsequently punished by Christians from the very beginning. I suspect your opinions, supportive of Christian-Jewish reconciliation, really wasn't a "thing" until the events of the Second World War provided an opportunity for Christians around the world to see the effects of theologically sanctioned anti semitism. I can only imagine that cameras and film would have contributed to this conflict of moral interests by offering rapid news stories and providing photographs and film that made this a personal, rather than theological issue. I think these are the kinds of things that modify the theological point of view: Confronted with the reality of the behaviors inspired by the beliefs they accepted to be true, people began to modify the very beliefs Teannika is explaining. I might add that in my opinion she is doing so with a bit of grace under fire. Granted, I think her argument should be put under fire, I think this is a good example of positive social pressure. It's not socially appropriate to support anti semitism in our culture. There's a reason for that - it was rejected, and subsequent generations (like ours) accepted this new opinion as "normal" (as it should, for superior ethical reasons). It's important to note, I think, that the explanation she offers is the historically respected one. Yours is the Johnny-Come-Lately in the game when you look at 2000 years of Christian theology.
Please forget I used the term historical document. I'm face palming right now. Ancient documents, Ancient stories...Something along that line. In was thinking historical in a slightly different sense and wasn't thinking about putting it and documents together would imply.
I think you see in Teannika's argument, just how faith is an unreliable method for determining historical accuracy and developing morally justifiable opinions and beliefs. It's unreliable because it's completely unfalsifiable. There is nothing Teannika can say that you can falsify, and nothing you can say that she can falsify, so long as you both use facts like what words are written in the bible. How one interprets those words, how one draws connections between particular groups of words, on the other hand, is not a matter of fact but opinion. Add to that the idea that the holy spirit is understood to guide the individual personally, and that spirit is the spirit of truth, of love, of gentleness, of compassion. It's why I don't doubt Teannika's comment that she herself isn't anti semitic. I wouldn't be surprised if she would be a lovely companion to a Jewish friend, if for no other reason than because she herself is inspired by those things that remind her of love and gentleness and compassion (I'm guessing now because of how she's responding to this thread). So if she throws in her personal feelings, personal events she's interpreted as the holy spirit guiding her, then how can you refute that? How can you say to her, No, the holy spirit didn't say that?Oh, sorry, back to your question, Teannika gets a pass from the community of believers that share her ideas and values, just like you get a pass for your liberal theology from the community of people who share your ideas and values. That's why having faith (not just Christian faith, any faith) is unreliable. You surround yourself with people who share the same beliefs and values, and there is no objective way to critique those who don't. The scientific method solves this problem by reducing as much as possible to the minimum variables, and these variables are objective and open to peer review. Personal bias is weeded out in the sea of explorers who don't share that bias, who illuminate and call for a dismissal of that bias when it inadvertently contaminates the process. Religious faith cannot offer that solution. By their very nature, the two methodologies are in constant diametric opposition.
I image your last question will be interpreted differently by me than it will by conservative Christians. Those who maintain a more conservative theological belief will no doubt interpret these "decades upon decades of work by critics, scholars and historians as being examples of people being lured by "worldly" beliefs, a secular Turkish Delight if you will. Your scholars simply draw a line between evidence and faith in a different place than the scholars Teannika will undoubtedly refer to for insight and knowledge.
I'm sure, but I asked you the question.
I'm talking about methods for evaluating ancient (not historical!!! Sorry again!) documents. I'm sticking to that narrow piece of the pie for the time being. There are very well established methods for examining the Bible and there's a whole community of scholars out there for a person to check their opinions against. Many, if not most, are secular folks who are playing by well established rules and not inserting faith into the equation. That's something separate and apart from my liberal theology. I have no idea who "my" scholars are supposed to be.
This is why I wonder about what you think that I think about the Bible. I spent a few years on the old Internet Infidels forum because they had excellent scholars there and my views on the Bible, on authorship and historical context and the like were pretty much in line with most of the folks there. When I'm looking for information I tend to go to secular academic sources, not apologetic ones. I could lose faith tommorrow (and I seriously could, I'm a serial teeterer) and my view on the Bible would be pretty much the same, sans a little bit of faith.
So, does being a person of faith justify an unreasoned and irrational approach? You don't need to go into the Holy Ghost. That's Teannika's matter. I think you would consider that irrational anyway.
The bible holds no value for me. That it holds value for you in and of itself is a neutral fact. How you are inspired is a subjective response, and how you behave is what I can judge, but for the most part, my thoughts of the bible would affect my responding to you no more than my thoughts of vegetarianism. The only difference is that my thoughts on the bible have inspired me to learn about it, its history, what's written in there, how it's been used. Vegetarianism is something I give passing thought to here and there. If I were to find out you don't eat meat, it wouldn't change how I respond to you, kwim?I didn't ask what value it held for you, I asked what you thought that I think of the Bible because I think that colours the discussion with your talk of faith and "my" scholars.
Sorry for not doing the quotes properly. I could last week but they've gone wonky on me.
-
I have a question? What exactly is the Queen of England's role in regards to the Church of England? I have always wondered this.
She is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It's mostly a ceremonial and symbolic role from what I gather and seems to have been established mostly to keep Roman Catholic paws off the new CoE way back in Herny VIII's day. She's additionally known as the Defender of the Faith in much of the Commonwealth although what that means varies. We don't have a state religion in Canada so functionally it's more Defender of Faith here. Some commonwealth countries don't give her that title at all.
The effective head of the church, however, is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The last one, Rowan Williams, was primarily known for his spooky eyebrows. The current one is...Someone. I'm sure of that. Ah, Justin Welby. No, I'm not googling all this as I type. Okay, I am, but that's allowed.
Anyhow, the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't anything like the pope. I could call him an arsehat and no one would make an issue of it. My minister might wonder why I was stealing his bit though...Communion is paramount, not a single personality, however pointy his eyebrows. Rowan did rock the Royal Wedding though.
-
IIRC (and it's been about 20 years), our church used Taylor port. Wouldn't have been the personal favorite of the priest, as he didn't consume the remainder. I don't remember for sure if it was because of a medication issue or if he was a recovering alcoholic. We (the altar guild) poured it out on the consecrated ground right outside the door---had one very interesting bush there <G>. The whole process of being on the altar guild was fascinating for me. We had one lady who heartily disliked our assistant priest because she felt he was not careful enough in administering communion, possibly dropping crumbs, and she was sure the sexton was "hoovering up the Body of Christ" each week.
Have to admit it was light years better than the homemade wine used by the tiny Presbyterian church where I grew up---tasted rather like raisins soaked in kerosene, as I remember---or the grape juice at the Baptist church I attended occasionally in college. Grape juice in general has always made me gag and my younger sister used to torment me by chewing grape Bubble Yum and breathing in my face---not the most reverent of associations for communion!
Now, I do also have to admit that I much preferred the homemade altar bread our one Episcopalian church used (not the same one as had the port, though I think they also used port--wasn't on altar guild there) to those wafers that taste like typing paper and stick to the roof of your mouth (or the oyster crackers the Presbyterian church above used or the melba toast at the above-mentioned Baptist church). :) I was told once by my Pentecostal stepmother that it was blasphemous to express an opinion about the taste of the elements of communion, but I responded that I doubted the intent was to make the communicants suffer!
We've had homemade bread. Can't escape crumbs there. :) I'm hoping that one day cheesecake is an acceptable host, can't see it though. :crying:
-
This thread is fun.
I hope nobody comes along and ruins it with some sort of serious religious debate.
That would be wrong. And irritating.
We're the Church of England. We tend to stay away from things religious. :D
-
Has the issue of some Episcopalian congregations wanting to leave and affiliate with the Roman Catholic Church while taking church property (as in the diocesan-owned buildings where they meet) with them died down? I saw a fair amount about it for a bit in the papers back when Pope Benedict actively recruited Anglicans to come "back into the fold," as it were, but haven't seen anything in the last couple of years.
The real issue is the ordination of homosexuals and ultimately, women. That's underneath those wanting to leave and it's still there, just that there's nothing to really spark debate and bring it to the surface right now. As far as the property issue, I'm not aware of any congregation that got to keep the building. It's pretty simple, the diocese owns the buildings, congregations don't.
-
Write down dates, a save emails and voicemails and start documenting. Then, when this is over, complain to his brokerage and professional organization.
-
I would agree with you on all counts.
....BUT...
^_^
But if faith doesn't operate through information and education, but through the bible, belief in Jesus, and trusting the holy spirit, all bets are off.
And there you've sort of recognized my limits. I'm first and foremost a child of a secular country and then later in life a member of a rather unexciting Christian denomination that, at least in my diocese, puts a value on information and education. To the point that I can't really get the way you separated the Bible from information and education in that sentence as if its somehow exempt and gets a free pass.
ETA: Sorry, I do get what you're saying though.
Another ETA: You do realize that if you ever come to Nova Scotia and don't stop in for tea and cheesecake I'll be highly offended. :p
-
I disagree. I think Teannika is trying her best to explain why she believes what she believes. Ironically, I think it might be your own pov that's standing in the way of understanding her. It seems you're having trouble accepting her position as a viable interpretation of the texts, even if they differ from your own. She's provided biblical support for her belief. That support shouldn't be dismissed because it's ethically problematic, imo.
It's not the ethically problematic bit that bothers me. The Bible is full of ethically troubling stuff and no interpretation can white wash it or explain it away (have I ever asserted otherwise?). But the Bible is a collection of historical documents subject to the same tools of historical and literary criticism of every other historical document. If I picked through the Declaration of Independence cherry picking words and quotes to assert that the US was founded by Martians you would be right to call me out on that. Not because you thought my conclusion was false but because the method was bad.
Does being a Christian, having faith, justify a bad method? Does Teannika get a pass that no secular reader would? Should we be fine with such methods of interpretation when we have decades upon decades of work by critics, scholars and historians that offer a more reasoned and rational approach? And again, I'm not arguing that it's her unethical conclusion that makes her wrong (although I can allow it might have looked like that, sorry). Good method doesn't ensure the "right" or "proper" reading or even agreement. But no one gets a pass because they are a fellow Christian.
I sometimes wonder what you think I think of the Bible and how it colours your responses to me.
-
Actually, Yes. She is clearly repeating what the bible says. She's quoting exclusively from the bible! She's not even providing all the verses that support her claim! So, sorry, but the facts are with Teannika here.
*snicker*
Well that's the very problem contessa is exploring - the bible cannot be reduced to facts like mathematics. There is no 3-1 because 3 cannot be defined (except for pi, 1 Kings, 7:23 ;) ).
Interestingly, you're correct in that her interpretation conflicts with other passages in the bible, but you're interpretations conflict with still other passages. See? No definitive "3," at best "some," or even "a few."
I also agree with you that the bible acts as a mirror (the Mirror of Erised maybe). It's a fantastic Rorschach test, I think. People see in it what they expect to see, what they desire to see. I think it was you who not too long ago linked an article about how we tend to think as lawyers, finding evidence to support our claims in a court of moral law. The bible is one of the most popular tools to this end, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is any more right than hers. It is arguably more socially responsible and reasonable, however.
It was a metaphor and metaphors have their limits. I'm not going to argue my interpretation is more right but I could certainly argue it's better informed and educated. That's no guarantee I'm right however.
-
This is all assuming a Christian reading of the OT in which prophecies are seen as being about telling the future.Like I said before, if you take extremely vague "prophecies" and then sift through a couple thousand years of history, you'll probably be able to find enough random events to claim that your predictions came true. If I held on to every fortune cookie I got in the next year, I could probably match them up to events over the course of my life and make the claim that every fortune cookie I ever got came true. But that wouldn't mean that the fortune cookies actually predicted anything. The bible is a long enough and vague enough book that people with an agenda can make it fit almost anything they want. The huge number of Christian denominations who all believe the bible backs up their beliefs are proof of that.
But the prophets were addressing the specific circumstances of their time and providing commentary and possible consequences of that. Straighten up or some young women is going to have a son who will take the throne dude. Which is often what happens with bad kings, no?
Never mind that those writing the NT knew their OT and could tailor their story match.
But these are ideas that won't make a dent because they require a shift to appreciate. You have to read the OT without your Christian blinders. You have to look from the past forward rather then from now back into the past. You have to adopt the perspective of a historian our critic and that's something that's actively warned against in some Christian circles.
Looking for a specific imitation writing program
in K-8 Curriculum Board
Posted
That's it! I recognize the clip art and comic sans. XD Thank you all!