Thursday, March 31, 2011

Recipe for Linzer cookies

These are some of our family's favorite cookies. The recipe I use is from a German cooking magazine, and gives metric amounts for the ingredients. Today, I finally converted it to the American measurements, which is why some of them are goofy amounts.

My apologies for using a stock photo - I was afraid if I stepped away from the counter to grab my camera, the kids would have gobbled up all the cookies in an instant :)


Ingredients:
2 cups flour
1 egg
¾ cup + 2 Tbsp. powdered sugar
1 tsp. vanilla extract
1 stick + 6 Tbsp. softened butter
strawberry of raspberry jelly
powdered sugar for dusting


1. In a large bowl, mix together flour, egg, powdered sugar, vanilla, and butter until a soft dough forms. It should not be crumbly and dry, or too sticky.

2. Roll dough to 1/16 inch thickness on a floured board. Use just enough flour to prevent sticking.

3. Cut out circles with a round cookie cutter. In half of the circles, cut out a small hole in the middle.

4. Place cookies on an ungreased cookie sheet and bake at 350 degrees for 9-12 minutes. Allow cookies to cool on sheet for a minute before moving them to a cooling rack.

5. Spread jelly on whole circles. Dust circles with small holes with powdered sugar, and place on jelly-covered circles. Assemble all cookies like this. Enjoy!

Bible Reading help

The "One Year Bible" has been a great resource to our family in keeping our Bible reading on track. In addition to reading it as a family for Bible time, the two oldest boys have been using it for their personal Bible reading, as well.



Last month, using the "One Year Bible", Solomon (9) finished reading through the entire Bible for the first time, plus twice though Psalms and Proverbs. It took him 14 months instead of one year. The year before that, he had read through just the New Testament, Psalms (2x), and Proverbs (2x) portion in one year.

Isaac (8) is 5 chapters short of completing the entire New Testament, and twice each in Psalms and Proverbs. It took him 11 months to do so - he picked up speed of his own accord so he can finish it before the 12 months will be over.

You may have heard that it only takes 15 minutes of reading per day to get through the Bible in one year. That may be true for fast readers who are not reading out loud. I find that for family Bible time, it takes 30 minutes to one hour to get through a daily portion, what with all the distractions that 6 children and a busy household cause. Many days, we do not complete an entire day portion, which is why I am glad that the older kids have their own personal reading time. 

If you are interested in using this Bible, I would strongly recommend ordering the hardcover version. The paperback version does NOT hold up well to daily use - we have had two and both have fallen apart. 

Seeds of Change Sowing Millions Project

If you enjoy gardening, this is a great deal for organic starter seeds. For $4.99 shipping, you get 25 free seed packets from Seeds of Change (a $75 value).

Please click here to go to their website.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Why Ladies Should Not Wear Head-Coverings

(a guest post by my husband)
 

1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Cor 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cor 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1Cor 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cor 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cor 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
1Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cor 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

1Cor 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

1Cor 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

1Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Some people have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 11 and believe that it is commanding women to wear hats or "head-coverings" of some kind. In this chapter, God is dealing with gender roles and the authority that a man has over his wife. In verse 3, the authority that a man has over his wife is likened unto the authority that God has over a man. God is the "head" (authority figure) of the man, and the man is the "head" (authority figure) of the woman. This matches perfectly with what the Bible says in Ephesians 5:

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

As we continue in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4-6 state:

1Cor 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cor 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

According to these verses women should have their heads "covered," and men should not. In fact, if a woman's head is not covered, that is just as bad as if she were "shorn" or "shaven." Notice that the Bible says that it is a "shame" for a woman to be shorn or shaven. We all know what "shaven" means, but what does the word "shorn" mean? The Bible uses the word "shorn" one other time in the New Testament:

Acts 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

The vow that the Bible is referring to here is a Nazarite vow from the Old Testament. Notice what the Bible commands about the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6:

Num 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Num 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Once again, the Bible is its own dictionary. Being "shorn" is another word for being "shaven." Paul having his head shaved with a razor is referred to as him being "shorn." Therefore God is saying that a woman being "uncovered" is just as shameful as her shaving her head completely bald as Paul did in Acts 18.

So, what is this "covering"?

1Cor 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cor 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

According to verses 13-15, a woman is "uncovered" if she does not have "long hair." A woman is therefore commanded to have long hair, and a man is commanded not to have long hair.

Those who believe in women wearing external "head-coverings" or bonnets on their heads will argue that even though long hair is a covering (indefinite article), women still need to wear an additional covering or bonnet on their heads. This is easily disproved with the Bible. The same passage that tells women to be covered tells men not to be covered. Therefore, if this were talking about something other than long hair (i.e. a "head-covering" or bonnet), it would be a sin for a man to wear it while praying or prophesying. This is directly in contradiction with many Old Testament passages that command the Old Testament priests to wear bonnets and mitres while ministering in the priests office:
Exo 28:40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
Exo 28:41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Exo 29:9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.

Exo 39:27 And they made coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons,
Exo 39:28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen,
Lev 8:13 And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets upon them; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Eze 44:17 And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.
Eze 44:18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.

Notice that the priest's clothing consisted of coats, britches (pants), and bonnets. Why would God tell us that "nature itself" teaches us that a woman should wear a head-covering, and that men should not, when he commanded over and over again that the priests (who were men of course) were required to wear bonnets when they prayed and prophesied in the priests office! The covering referred to in 1 Corinthians 11 is long hair, as defined in the passage itself; it is not a bonnet or head-covering.

This is consistent with the Old Testament, which commanded the priests not to have long hair:

Eze 44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

They were commanded to be neither completely bald nor long-haired, but rather to "poll" (i.e. cut short the hair on) their heads.

Other proponents of "head-coverings" on women will say that if you "go back to the Greek," you'll see that the word for "covering" in verse 15 is different than the other words used for "covering" in the passage. Of course, they are not fluent in Greek, but because the words look a lot different, they assume that they must be talking about completely different things. However, there are many examples in our language of words that look completely different as different parts of speech, but that are actually the same. Here are a few examples:

- having faith (noun) means that you believe (verb).
- being undressed (adjective) means you aren't wearing any clothes (noun).
- doing something manually (adverb) means that you did it by hand (noun).
- thing that are lunar (adjective) have to do with the moon (noun).

You see how identical words can look completely different as different parts of speech. Therefore a woman can be uncovered (adjective - ακατακαλυπτω) because she is not wearing a covering (noun - περιβολαιου). Just because the words look the same in English does not mean that they will look the same in Greek. Apparently these head-covering advocates who couldn't even order a meal in a Greek restaurant think they know more than the KJV translators. This is why one should always beware when anyone has to "go back to the Greek" to prove their doctrine.

Now that we understand what "covering" is referring to in 1 Corinthians 11 (i.e. long hair), let's go back and look at the passage with this definition in mind:

1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Cor 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered
(i.e. having long hair), dishonoureth his head (i.e. dishonours Jesus Christ - see previous verse).
1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (i.e. with short hair) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (i.e. if a woman doesn't have long hair, she might as well be bald!)
1Cor 11:6 For if the woman be not covered
(i.e. she has short hair), let her also be shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (i.e. in God's eyes, it is just as much of a shame for a woman to have short hair, as it is for her to be completely shaved bald).
You may say, "Okay, Pastor Anderson, I get it. Women do not have to wear head-coverings, but they do have to have long hair. But can't they wear head-coverings if they want to? Why are you against head-coverings?"

I am against head-coverings on women for two reasons:

1. I am against head-coverings because they associate you with the wrong crowd spiritually. Every church or pastor I have ever seen or known that taught that women were commanded to wear head-coverings was wrong on the Gospel. I have never seen or heard of a church that taught that women must wear head-coverings that believed that salvation was by faith alone. The churches and teachers promoting head-coverings on women teach a works-based salvation in one of the following forms:

- some teach you can lose your salvation
- some teach you must repent of your sins in order to be saved
- some teach you must surrender your life to Christ in order to be saved
- some teach Calvinist doctrines of "grace" which teach that if you don't have works, you aren't saved, and that God is the one who chooses who will be saved and who will be damned (TULIP).

The Bible on the other hand states that salvation is by faith alone:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have never seen or heard of any church that preached Bible salvation that taught women to wear head-coverings. Therefore, wearing a head-covering will lump you in with unsaved false teachers such as the Amish, Pentecostals, etc.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

1Thess 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

2. I am against head-coverings because they are not modest apparel. Yes, you got that right, I said that they are not modest apparel:

1Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Tim 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The word "modest" in these verses is often misinterpreted to only mean "not revealing" or "not promiscuous." However, there is nothing revealing or promiscuous about broided hair, gold, or pearls. This passage is telling ladies not to dress in a way that draws attention to themselves. Their good works should be what stand out, not their appearance, clothing, hair, or jewelry. Instead of a "Christian uniform," it should be the good works of Christian ladies that stand out to the world.

mod·est

[mod-ist]
–adjective
1.having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.

Women who wear head-coverings or Amish-looking dresses are doing so in order to purposely look different and stand out. There are many beautiful and stylish dresses for women to wear that are very modest and and not revealing whatsoever, but that do not purposely draw attention and cry out, "Look at me! Look how 'modest' I am!" Purposely drawing attention to yourself is neither modesty nor humility!

If ladies who practice "head-covering" were truly just trying to obey scripture and not draw attention to themselves, then why not wear a "head-covering" something like this:


or this:


Instead, this is what you usually see:


or this:

 
Conclusion:

Ladies are commanded by the Bible to have long hair. They are not commanded to wear an external head covering of any kind. If they do wear one, people will probably associate them with religions that preach a false Gospel.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Woman loses custody of child for five years for refusing C-section

Article can be found here.

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

March 17, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey woman has lost custody of her child for the past five years for refusing to sign a consent form permitting a C-section during her child’s birth, according to an exclusive report published by Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper.
 
The Daily Mail reports that the woman, whose initials are given as VM, was accused of child abuse by staff of St. Barnabas Hospital of New Jersey for refusing to sign the document, despite the fact that VM agreed to submit to the operation if it later became necessary.

Although VM’s judgment turned out to be correct, and she gave birth naturally through her birth canal to a healthy baby child, her child was taken away by authorities.

After years of judicial proceedings, in which the trial judge and an appellate court upheld the decision to deprive VM of her child, she finally received a favorable ruling on a second appeal. The case was remanded to the lower court judge, who still must issue a revised ruling.  VM’s husband, whose initials are BG, has also been deprived of custody.

In overturning the lower court ruling, the New Jersey Superior Court reportedly stated, “Termination [of parental rights] is among the most extraordinary remedies that can be exercised by a court. We must insist that the remedy be reserved for those instances where the state meets the extraordinary burden imposed by the law.”

It adds: “That burden has not been met here.”

Wow. So much to say on this one. In a country that allows the unborn child to be murdered up until the moment of birth, under the guise of "a woman's right to choose" and "my body, my choice", this is a disgusting display of hypocrisy. So it's not okay to have a natural birth, if a doctor considers it dangerous, even though his true and only concern is a malpractice suit, and his insurance company dropping him. But killing the child is fine if the parents don't want it.

Having a repeat cesarean has a greater risk of mortality and morbidity than the minute chances of uterine rupture. If there is a dead or injured mom or baby, traditionally, courts have ruled in favor of physicians if they performed a c-section, and against them if they instead cautiously observed and waited. So in spite of the fact that performing the surgery leads to more harm done than not performing the surgery, the first is considered "doing everything in their power to save the baby/mother", and therefore usually is ruled in the physician's favor. The health of mother and baby is not the main concern - the doctor's medical license is. Erring on the side of caution to them means performing an almost always unnecessary cesarean, whereas erring on the side of caution regarding the mother/child would be to observe and wait.

This is not an isolated, rare case. I have blogged on court-ordered cesareans before. There was a case like that in Arizona a little over one year ago, and another one of a mother whose baby was taken at birth after she refused to sign the consent form for the surgery (her baby was eventually returned to her - I was unable to retrieve the news article on that). It goes back to government officials thinking that they know better what is in the best interest of our own children, even though they would never have a fraction of the love that normal parents feel for their children toward those same children. Are there parents who hate and abuse their children? Certainly. However, they are not the kind who fight tooth and nail to protect their unborn child from the risks of unnecessary surgery. They are more likely the kind who will get an abortion, which of course, is not only legal, but funded by the government. 

Sadly, this further proves my point that the hospital is the worst place to have a baby. Is it sometimes necessary to transfer to the hospital, or even to have a cesarean? Certainly, but those life-or-death cases are very, very rare. Do you think all elderly people should live at a hospital in case they suffer a heart attack? That would be silly. Yet, labor offers many more warning signs of things turning in an undesired direction, so there is time to transfer if necessary. It's not like at the hospital, the surgical team is just standing by every laboring woman's bedside, scrubbed clean and suited up for surgery, with the OR clean and available, and the team of nurses ready and waiting, just in case something should go wrong. If there is a need to transfer, the midwife usually calls when the parents are getting in the car and leaving home, and likely they will arrive at the hospital before the surgeon and OR are even ready for them. Cases like this, however, will make parents LESS likely to transfer, worsening the situation if there is a true medical emergency. Going to the hospital is so dangerous, it becomes a last ditch, desperate effort when pretty much all other options have been exhausted. It ought not be like that. Women should make the choice to birth at home because of preference, not because going to the hospital is such a dangerous option.

Click here to read about another case of a newborn baby being stolen from the parents by government officials at the hospital.

This post is not about the question of home vs. hospital birth. It is about government overstepping their bounds and abusing their power to prove a point, intimidate, coerce, harass, and injure (both physically, and emotionally). 

What are your thoughts on this?

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Hyperemesis gravidarum and being open to children



Recently, a reader whom I have met in real life left the following comment on my blog:

How do you handle your family and your home while dealing with repeat hyperemesis? I would love another child, but my fear of HG and the knowledge that I can't take care of my others, makes me so fearful of embracing being open to children. I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

It is such a good question, I thought I'd answer it in a blog post of its own.

For starters, I would like to explain (for those who have never been unfortunate enough to experience it firsthand) how bad hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is. It is morning sickness, multiplied a thousand times. It is a lot like food poisoning, except that  it lasts months instead of one day, and never lets up. It means throwing up a dozen times or more, every day - sometimes up until the baby is born. It means getting sick from the mention of any food, or driving past a restaurant, or even just getting an ad for one in the mail. It means that any stimulation to the senses is a trigger for more nausea (smells, tastes, loud noise or repetitive sounds, busy patterns, heat/cold, being touched, etc.). It means having a sore and often bleeding throat from all the bile that is traveling the wrong direction. It means wanting to lie alone in a cool, dark, quiet room all day, and not being able to. It means time dragging on excruciatingly slowly, and forgetting that you ever used to feel "normal".

Hyperemesis is terrible in every way imaginable. Some moms have it much worse than that yet, and require aggressive medical care and supervision. At its best, moms suffering from hyperemesis are horribly miserable and depressed. At its worst, they would rather die than have to live another day in such utter misery. On the hyperemesis spectrum, I am happy that I never have it as bad as some moms I have read/heard about. I throw up 10-20 times per day between weeks 5 and 16, at which point I usually have a very enjoyable and carefree rest of my pregnancy. The nausea takes its toll on my throat and teeth (i.e. very expensive dental bills), but much more than that, on my emotional well being. When it's all over, I suffer from what could probably be categorized as post-traumatic stress disorder: disbelief at what I've just been through, relief that it's over, and fear that it might ever happen again. It takes a good while to get over it - I still feel somewhat shook up from my most recent bout of HG with Anna's pregnancy.

So why in the world would any sane person knowingly go through something so unpleasant? At the risk of sounding cliche - because it's all worth it. As I sit and hold my baby, smell her little head, brush across her downy hair with my lips, I slowly heal and forget about the misery that being pregnant caused. I would be willing to pay a much higher price than that to have her. Like most any parent, if I had to, I would gladly give my life for her. 

The first aspect I would like to address is faith. Faith is seeing the invisible, and knowing that something is true even though we have no physical evidence of it. When you are first pregnant, there is not much physical evidence of that child, other than the nausea. Especially with a first child, we may not realize how happy we will be when we eventually get to meet our child. It takes faith to put up with months and months of misery and physical illness in hopes of getting something wonderful in return almost a year later. 

Secondly is a conviction that regardless of whether something is easy or not, if we are commanded to do it in the Bible, we must obey God. Now, long before I was a Christian I always dreamed of having a large family because I love babies, children, and everything to do with homemaking. I am not having babies because I have to, but because I want to. But even if I didn't feel that way, I would still have to obey the Bible on this matter, or else be in sin. This post is not to prove that birth control is unscriptural. Suffice is to say that such is my conviction based on the Bible, so it really doesn't matter if that is something I feel like obeying or not, or how hard it will be to obey. If the Bible commands us to leave family size in God's hands, then that is what we have to do. It is no longer a question of preference.

Ironically, having what may seem to some such a "restrictive" or "oppressive" viewpoint is actually extremely liberating. It takes all responsibility of this decision making off us parents and places it squarely on God.
 In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge. (Proverbs 14:26)

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
(Heb 10:35-36)

I do not have to worry about whether I am short-changing my husband and the other children because for 5 months out of every two years I am too sick to cook all their favorite foods, take them out of the house much, play a lot with them, or even read out loud. I have complete faith that if I obey God to the best of my ability, He will take my imperfections and fill in the gaps as needed. Many Christians understand this concept when it comes to parenting, providing for our families financially, and other areas of our Christian life. Trusting God with our fertility is no different: we do our best, and leave God the rest. If He is putting us through a trial, we can rest assured that He will help us through it, and that we will be better of because of it.

And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
(Rom 5:3-4)


And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
(2Co 12:7-10)

So to answer the original question (some of this post has branched into other aspects), how I handle the home and the family: I don't, at least not to my usual standards. But I realize that there are seasons in life, and while I may be serving my family a different hot cooked meal thrice daily right now, they might have to live off oatmeal for a while next year this time. In the end, God will see to it that it all evens up.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Announcing the felt giveaway winners!

There were a total of 86 qualifying comments. Because I had said I would give out one set per every 40 entries, a total of three sets were up for grabs. I used random.org to pick three random numbers, which were 11, 15, and 37:
 


Comment 11:



Comment 15:



Comment 37:


Congratulations to the winners! Please leave me a comment below with your email address (it will not be published) and letting me know which set you would like. I will get in touch with you via email to get your mailing address. 

Sorry to those who entered and didn't win. This was so much fun, I am sure I will host another similar giveaway very soon! Thank you for participating!!

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Felt foods, and a GIVEAWAY

Making play foods from felt is seriously addictive. The more I look for tutorials online, the more I find. Too bad my family still needs to eat real food, too, because I could easily devote all my time to cooking up the fake stuff.

These are some of the links to felt food tutorials I have found online:


Breakfast
-         bacon
-         sausages
-         pancakes
-         syrup
-         butter pat
-         orange slice


Fruits
-         banana: out of peel, sliced)
-         orange
-         apple
-         orange/lemon slice
-         strawberry
-         kiwi
 -         watermelon
-    cherries

Veggies
-         carrots
-         squash
-         egg plant
-         potato
-         corn on the cob
-     beets
-     lettuce
-         green beans

Dinners
-         pizza and toppings
-         ravioli/farfalle w/sauce and meatballs
-         turkey dinner
-         burger and fries
-         steak
-         taco
-         fajita
-         pot stickers
-         lasagna

Sweets/snacks
-         lollipop
-         ice cream
-         cake
-         donut
-         pumpkin pie
-         cinnamon roll
-         cupcake
-         cookies (heart-shaped, chocolate-chip, M&Ms)
-         chocolate bar
-         popcorn  in bag
-         tortilla chips


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And now for the giveaway:

Please enter to win a felt food play set of your choice. You can choose between getting a 

breakfast set (3 pancakes, syrup, butter, and 2 each of bacon, sausages, sunny-side up eggs, and orange slices),

(2 sausages not pictured in this set, but will be included)

or

sweet foods set (2 each of cinnamon rolls, donuts, large and small heart-shaped cookies, and chocolate chip and M&M cookies)



or a

sandwich kit (2 slices of bread, 2 peanut butter and one jelly topping, 1 each of Swiss cheese and bologna, and 2 each of tomato slices and lettuce).


These are the same type of sets I made for Isaac, Miriam, and Becky's birthdays, but obviously you would get a new, never-played-with-before, set. To make shipping easier, I will not be able to include the clear plastic boxes that we store these foods in at home, but you can get your own from a deli or bakery.

To enter the giveaway, do one, some, or all of the following:

- Leave a comment below (no anonymous comments - Google ID or other required)
- Leave another comment with a link to your favorite felt food(s).
- Become a follower of this blog, and leave a comment letting me know that you did so.
- Post about this giveaway on your blog, and leave a comment letting me know that you did so.
- Share this post on facebook, and leave me a comment letting me know that you did so.

That means you could get as many as FIVE entries, BUT you MUST leave a separate comment for each entry. 

Deadline to enter is Sunday, March 13th, 2011.

Open to all readers. Restrictions apply for some countries.


I will give away one set per every 40 entries, so if there are a lot, your chances will still be pretty decent that you may get one. Please allow about one week after the giveaway is over for your set to ship, as I will not start making them until I know how many I need to make, and of which kind.

Have fun!

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Recipe for salsa like Chili's



With all this hoopla about tacos, I thought it would be fitting to share a really good copycat recipe for salsa like Chili's. It only takes a couple of minutes to make, and is a huge hit in our house. The ingredients are pretty basic staples that you probably already have in your pantry.


 Ingredients:

1 can diced tomatoes
1/2 of an onion, peeled (about 1/2 cup)
1 tbsp lime juice
3 tbsp canned diced jalapenos
1/4 tsp cumin
1 tsp salt

Directions:

Dump all the ingredients into a blender, and blend until smooth. Enjoy!

 

So easy, but oh, so good!!! And, it tastes every bit like the stuff at Chili's.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Del Taco - at least, they're being honest

Quiz: What belongs between the men's and the ladies' restroom?



Answer: Why, the Del Taco drive-through menu, of course!

In a definite case of truth being stranger than fiction, I snapped the above photo during an impromptu drive-through purchase at Del Taco. I mean, who wants to order and then consume food (using the term very loosely here) that is advertised between two restrooms?? At least the management is being honest about the correct categorization of their products. 

But why, oh why, were we there? Neither my husband nor I have ever been to or eaten anything from Del Taco in our entire lives. We pulled in there to buy one of their 59 cent tacos for me to dissect and get exact weight comparisons between their ingredients and mine, following my last blog post that raised such controversy.

The results:




 22 g of meat product (this is NOT 100% beef), which is 0.77 oz

 2 g of cheese product, which is 0.07 oz


 6 g of iceberg lettuce, which is 0.21 oz

Synopsis: While Del Taco uses slightly more "meat" in their tacos than we do (22g vs. 19g), this really is not a fair comparison because their product is not even 100% meat, but rather contains disgusting fillers. This is made up for by the fact that we use three times as much cheese (2g vs. 6g) which at $6/lb costs the same as the meat we use. We also used romaine rather than iceberg, the latter being entirely devoid of any nutritional value.


See, even Del Taco agrees with me. The real reason why we eat at home is not just because it's more nutritious, tastier, and less expensive - I'm just not enough of a daredevil to chance consuming their product.