I'm thinking it must be a bad question then. The only references I could find linking Northwest passage and treaty were related to the 1818 treaty. The question makes sense in that context. Is there a specific time period he's studying? this must be frustrating for you both!

I think context needs to be considered. If thin straps are showing in an otherwise rather everyday outfit then whomever thinks they're suggestive should likely recognize the problem is their own. If the straps are showing under a sheer top at party, there might be some intent to be suggestive. It's never been an issue with my kids and I don't intend to make it one. I've made a decision not to make my daughter (because we really are almost always talking daughters with these threads) responsible for what goes on in other people's heads.

Then I think he needs to provide you with more info. It sounds like he may have a few wires crossed regarding the treaty.

It's wool. It all comes from sheep. :) If someone were coming back with some though I'd like something a little rustic looking. A warning though, if you're asking for help make sure you specify you want sheep's wool. Wool is often used interchangeably with yarn over there so you could conceivably ask for wool and get an acrylic yarn.

Bah. You want the Northwest passage of the Canadian Arctic for some real, stomach churning history. Ross, Kane, Parry, another Ross and then Franklin with his brilliantly named HMS Erebus and HMS Terror. Men stranded in the dark ice with limited rations for years with John Ross. Two ships and almost a hundred and fifty men disappearing into the ice with Franklin. Spooky. I inhaled this stuff for awhile. :D

You want the Treaty of 1818. :) But because you mentioned the Northwest Passage about the arctic route. It's a goosebump inducing song that references Franklin's doomed expedition. The chorus: Ah, for just one time I would take the Northwest Passage To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea; Tracing one warm line through a land so wide and savage And make a Northwest Passage to the sea. The stories of the British who first tried to travel the NW passage are heady reading. Tragedy, horror...Stuff you don't want to read in a dark bedroom and empty house. Anyhow, an amazing song by an amazing songwriter.

Some people are suspicious of the HSLDA and tend to assume the worst. I'm one of those. I don't need additional reasons to dislike the HSLDA. :D It's generally up to someone else to talk me down when I'm ready to smack Michael Farris et al. Thankfully, there are people here that do it. I think his Facebook response was genuine and I was glad to see that he wished he had spoken out before.

Thanks for posting that.

Even Calvin's idea of total depravity isn't as extreme as the one I saw in this thread that maintains we are "pure evil". He did hold fast to the idea of imago Dei that Chris mentioned. Calvinism may look to Calvin but it doesn't reflect his actual beliefs as much as some would think. It reflects lines of thought inspired by him hence Calvin would most likely not be a Calvinist (like Christ would not be a Christian?:)). ETA: And now I see that Patty Joanna wrote a much better post about the same thing. :)

I didn't mean to say anything about how he was seen but how he presented himself and the HSLDA. Good point! The point has been made that the HSLDA had ties with Vision Forum. It would be interesting to sort out the relationship between the HSLDA and patriarchal Christians. But you're right about him deserving credit for what he's done. ETA: Now I am wanting to know more about what Farris said and thinks but more because I think you may have a point and I overreached, even in the two sentences above this little edit. I'll disagree with you here. It may not dominate it but it does permeate it. And you're right that most aren't extreme but some of the less extreme views are often informed by those in the more extreme quarters. And as Mrs. Mungo pointed out, a trip to most homeschool conventions can make that evident. Again, I used the term permeates for a reason. It's not an issue of demographics, it's one of culture and influence. The Duggars might show up at a homeschooling convention. A small minority of attendees might be familiar with ATI but everyone at the convention is witness to ATI style Christianity. I agree the number of patriarchal homeschoolers is small but their influence is not. I didn't say it was a crisis at the HSLDA. I was thinking more a crisis for HSLDA many HSLDA members, which is unquestionably going to have a larger portion of patriarchal families then the general population. I should have been clearer about that though! My post was reactionary and I'm rethinking some of what I said. Still, I think some of my point weren't complete nonsense. :D

My bOOks are my own.

It's a great forum with a wide range of experience. People do ask for advice here all the time.

I'm a Christian and I don't think that's wrong although how I think it's right is probably different from the way you do. :D Even if you believe in God you can't see God or touch God or hear God. You're left with metaphors and imaginings: the light, the bread, father, mother, etc. We construct ways to think about God that come from our experience.

I think you're right but I also think it's a pattern the Bible itself recognizes and record. There's an evolution of thought and relationship with God in the OT. It changed when Adam and Eve were kicked out, it changed again after the flood. In some parts of the OT there are writings that are uncompromising in their view that Hebrews should be abandoning their non-Jewish wives and then there's the Book of Ruth with the opposite meaning. Jesus changes things again, each gospel writer has a different take on the life and ministry of Christ... The one consistent theme in the Bible is that change is the only constant. :) It shouldn't be too surprising that Christian thought and tradition changes as well.

I visited the Quackwatch site and here's their entry. They aren't kind. :) The interesting bit is that in your case therapy may help: So you may want a second opinion. Search out a doctor that does orthoptics though rather then "vision therapy".

I just wanted to say that the next time you're in pain, leave it to the dentist to diagnose. Don't put off visiting him/her for any reason. I've done this. It's stupid. :o

Mind boggling from the perspective of those of us who've never lived in that paradigm or have grown away from it. I don't find it particularily boggling if we're talking about people from within a specific sub-culture who've never, or never had the chance, to explore much beyond it.

And so were the earliest Christians. It took us a little while to annoy people enough to get kicked out.

I think the issue with Farris is that he has set himself up as a leader in the homeschooling movement. He will speak up about UN declarations, gun control bills, spanking legislation, anything that seems remotely linked to homeschooling if even in the most tangential way. Yet patriarchy, an issue that absolutely permeates a lot of the homeschooling movement, gets a pass? What tends to get addressed is what appeals to those who send in their dues. Huge issues that might threaten those dues get ignored until there's a crisis.

Got it. :D A Christian is not just a believer in Christ but a follower of Christ. God IS Christ. Jesus IS Christ. God does not need to follow himself. Although I've now got a picture of a dog chasing it's own tail and in that case, if God were the dog, God might well be a Christian. :D

And then there was the whole Byzantine Iconoclasm where despite the common absolute of the Ten Commandments, two opposing sides came too radically different conclusions on the issue of icons. It didn't stop there and despite the fact that there was that common absolute icons continued to be an issue in later times in different parts of Christendom. It's a clearly stated common absolute that Thou Shalt Not Kill. An yet there were crusades, pogroms, burnings at the stake and there is much modern support for the death penalty among Christians. 2000 years of Christianity has spawned hundreds of different and often conflicting views of what it means to be a moral Christian. I'm not sure it's as clear cut for Christians as you would like to think. Of course there is. There are laws. There are also generally accepted standards of behaviour in society. There are also different cultures within an ethnic group or even just a family that dictate moral standards. I came to Christianity from an almost completely unchurched background and so this is one argument I just never understand.

They weren't True Christians. That's not logic, that's fact. They were Hebrews. The Old Testament is first and foremost an Ancient Hebrew text and we shouldn't be co-opting Hebrew figures and calling them Christian. God isn't a true Christian either, God is God. Heck, Jesus was a Hebrew too. The first Christians were Jewish as well. The argument gets convoluted when we get messy about our claims and facts.

It's not really the flip side. As a Christian, or as a woman, or as a Canadian, or as a geek, I would do the same.

Even taking that as a given, a lot of the sins that end in people being sent to the ovens aren't murder or incest or sexual predation. They're closing the door to someone asking for help, refusing to sign a certain form or choosing to sign another, gossiping about a neighbour, being willfully blind to the consequences of those acts. In some environments, those are the sins that lead to others being dragged off and murdered on masse. And if you're a Christian in a powerful position who's willfully turning that blind eye, the consequences of those "little" sins can be tragically compounded. The murderer might kill one person. The Christian woman who gossiped about her Jewish neighbours might be responsible for the death of a whole family. The Bishop or Christian government bureaucrat who signed a few papers or turned a blind eye could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds or thousands.

TRUE Christians, whatever that is, are still people capable of evil and sin, no? Are you without sin yourself? Have no completely stopped sinning in every respect as a Christian? If TRUE Christians are capable of sin why would some not be capable of being complicit in the deaths of others?