Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Advent Calendar

For the first time ever, it occurred to me this year to make one advent calendar for all the kids to share. As I was putting the finishing touches on it yesterday night, I was shaking my head at how in the world I had managed to pull off making one for each child for so long, without losing my sanity. Then I remembered that I had lost my sanity years ago, and it all finally made sense.

Besides saving me time and (theoretically) my sanity, there are other advantages to this new method: Since I only have to come up with 24 treats and not 192, I can put bigger/nicer things in for items that can be shared, such as this book that was in the calendar for today. This means that there are zero Dollar Tree-like trinkets in there, which goes well with my new "less is more" motto. If I'm going to give them a treat, it will be something of nice quality, practical, and not clutter/junk. About half of the days are filled with goodies that fit that bill, while the other half are filled with German candies (thank you, CostPlus World Market!).

Soooo, anyhow, I needed a design that could accommodate various size gifts, and enough for 8 kids each day. This means that advent calendars based on uniform containers like matchboxes or toilet paper rolls never work well for us. I also needed something that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg in craft supplies, was adorable and eye-catching while fairly easy to make, and that wouldn't break my heart to throw away after each day was opened because I'm not trying to store anything unless I absolutely must. If you have looked at my "Advent Calendars" board on Pinterest, you know this decision is serious business for me! 



I discovered the above idea for an advent calendar in just enough time to pull it off. It was originally sold as a craft kit on a German website. I created my own knock-off version by using paper lunch sacks for the body, creating a template for the antlers from this design (I scaled it down to fit 2 pairs of antlers per sheet of paper), and using white Avery brand self-sticking round labels in two sizes (#5294 for the larger eyes, and #5293 for the smaller eyes and noses). I designed the noses on the template maker on avery.com. Other than cutting out the antlers, this project really was pretty fast and easy. For items that were too large to fit into a lunch sack and leave enough room at the top to fold the bag over, I cut the bottom off a second lunch sack, and glued this "sleeve" to the first bag to make it taller. 

This calendar now adorns the top of our piano. Like most years, after I had stayed up too late finishing it, the kids were up bright and early today, excited to open the first bag. I forgot to give them the speech about if they get up too early, they don't get to open the calendar until lunch that day... So yes, I'm tired today! ;)

(To see design ideas from years past, please click here: 2014, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2008, 2007. Evidently, 2009 and 2013 didn't get blogged about.)

Monday, November 30, 2015

Answering large family objections, Final Part - My, how small your house is!

Part 1 here
Part 2 here

Finally, inevitably someone will inquire about the size of the house a large family lives in, as if that should be a major deciding factor. This is a thinking that I can sympathize with, because I, too, used to think that big family = big house, simply by necessity. However, over the years as I have talked to other large family moms, I have noticed that besides medium-sized families in average sized homes, there are pretty much two extremes: large families in small homes, and small families in large homes.

I don't think this is a coincidence - people are choosing to have either a big house, or a big family. At approx. 1550 sq ft, our house is definitely considered on the small side for a family our size, at least by today's standards (4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, plus dining/school room, kitchen, living room, no garage, but two good-sized sheds). Even just a hundred years ago, however, our house would have been considered a mansion, and that even long before indoor plumbing and heating/air conditioning were standard conveniences. No, judging by most of history, and even the vast majority of the world today, we live in the lap of luxury. There are those who suppose that "gain is godliness," so to them, bigger equals better, but I think just the opposite is true.


By virtue of the fact that there are many of us living under the same roof, and that the bedrooms are - well, bedrooms for sleeping in and not for children holing up in by themselves, we have grown very close as a family. Games and activities take place in common areas like the kitchen or living room. For better or for worse, we are around one another much of the day, and it really does change who you are as a person. For the better, I like to think, as selfishness is the one thing we simply don't have room for in our house.

You see, it doesn't take much room to find sleeping quarters for 11 people. We will not need to bust out the shoe horn to squeeze this new wee one in. No, the thing that eats up space is stuff. We would all do well to have a lot less stuff, and a whole lot more time spent with one another. There are authors making lots of money writing books about how to cut down on all the clutter and things, which just add mental baggage and stress, not peace and prosperity. Less truly is more!
For now, we will simply lengthen our cords, and strengthen our stakes. Since my morning sickness has up and left for good a couple of weeks ago (YAY!), I have been working like a crazy woman at radically simplifying our lives by getting rid of things we neither use, care about, or would ever miss. Having lived in the same house for a decade, there has been plenty of time for things to accumulate that we really don't need. I have been nothing short of ruthless, getting rid of anything none of us were excited about (okay, the youngest ones' opinions don't count, as they would like to hoard even outright garbage). My goal is to downsize by about 50% or more overall, but in areas like clothing and toys, more like 80%. We have filled dozens of lawn bags with things to be thrown away, have donated many, many boxes of things and have sold others online, and still have an entire room full of stuff to be sold at an upcoming yard sale. And honestly, none of us is missing any of the things we got rid of. In fact, the backbreaking and allergy-inducing work aside, this project has been very satisfying and liberating. The big boys and girls are fully on board, motivated and helping, as they, too, understand the benefits of living more minimally, and actually having time to play with the few things they care about, rather than spending all their free time being curators of a toy museum of items they don't really use. Also, they cannot wait for the de-cluttering to be done so we can switch around the bedrooms.

 
The triple bunk bed in what used to be the boys' room. Yes, we usually always have sheets on our bed, not sure why we posed for pics without them.


The three girls will move into the current boys' room, which has a beautiful triple bunk bed in it, and even has a toddler bed under the loft part for a possible future sister (the toddler bed is now where the little bookcase and dresser were in the above pic). Us parents will move our bedroom into the former girls room, which will open up the largest room in the house, currently my bed room, for the boys. All five of them will be moving in there. To that end, we will commission the same carpenter who made the triple bunk bed to make a quadruple bunk bed (twin over full, and twin over twin, in an L-shape), and will also add a toddler bed for Boaz for now. This can later be upgraded to another bunk bed (twin over full) if the boys keep outnumbering the girls. That configuration provides ample sleeping room for as many as 13 children in all, a number we are still very far from, and may never even reach. Our fourth bedroom has a guest bed in it and also doubles as the office, so we won't count that.

 The new quad bunk will be similar to this, except that the sides will be reversed, and one of the beds in the bottom will be full size, not twin.

Years ago, I thought that surely, eventually we would have to move to a bigger house. But now, as our family has grown, and even though we are in a position to move if we wanted to, I no longer want to move. Five of our children were born in this house, and if I can, I would like to grow old here and have all those memories to cherish still. We like our neighbors, we like our neighborhood, we like our pool and yard, we like being close to church and the city, we like that our church started in this house. When the kids are grown and gone, this house will be HUGE for us, and we will have so many wonderful memories here. The kids will love bringing their own children over to their childhood home. No, if we can make do where we are, we gladly will. We will live smarter, not larger.
And while those who don't know better feel sorry for our kids that they share bedrooms, the kids will go to sleep whispering and telling stories, scheming, making priceless memories, and growing closer each day. To them, it's like summer camp every day.

We all make our choices - this is ours. We love our kids far more than worldly possessions, and are thrilled to have been blessed with another one on the way.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Answering large family objections, Part 2 - My, how old you are!

Part 1 here

~~~~~~~

Another common objection to having lots of kids is the mother's age. At the ripe old age of 36, I am considered an "elderly grand multipara," something I can only laugh at.

It is no coincidence that God designed women's bodies in such a way that they go into menopause in plenty of time to see even the youngest child into adulthood, barring any tragedies (which, as the name implies, can strike anyone, at any age).

There are many studies that show that older mothers usually have better pregnancy outcomes, increased fertility if they started having kids when they were young, carry to term more often, have higher rates of twinning, and have smarter kids than younger mothers.

And really, it should come as no wonder. Whereas I was deathly ill and throwing up 30+ times a day with Solomon, I have learned how to prevent that. Whereas we could not afford all of the best supplements as newlyweds, and had a $40 weekly budget for all our groceries and toiletries, nor did we have any knowledge of what "healthy" truly meant, we are now in a position where I can buy the top of the line supplement of any kind, and afford the most nutritious foods. Whereas I used to have to do all my work as usual, even when sick and pregnant, I have now reached the "Queen Years" where my older children are willing and able helpers. Years of being pregnant have taught me some "tips of the trade" that young mothers simply have not yet had time to learn. Everyone knows that the longer you do something, the better you become at it.

Nowhere outside the realm of motherhood are the 40s considered "old" - these should be our prime years, and if you have lived a life following God's rules rather than partying, drinking, doing drugs, switching partners, and generally living a hard life - they will be! 

Of course, the mother's age being a factor is a relatively new notion, as throughout history nature has of necessity been allowed to run its course. We were recently given an old family Bible that had a family registry in the front. The couple who originally owned it had married in 1901, and their first child was born in 1903. They went on to have a total of 13 children, all born about two years apart. Two died in infancy (one at 1 month old, the other at 8 months old). Clearly, this couple did not practice birth control, had children during all their reproductive years, and went on to live long and presumably happy lives with their children and grandchildren (who were also listed in the family Bible). I really don't think that the thought on their death beds was, "We should have quit after the first two kids, and not had those ones in our 40s."

In other words, this is likely, Lord willing, not going to be the last pregnancy for us, as I anticipate probably another decade of being able to have children. You know what they say, having children keeps you young! :)

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Answering large family objections, Part 1 - My, how neglected and overworked your other children are!


The kids are all very excited that we are expecting again. I didn't mean to tell them as early as I did - it happened rather by accident. They were all posing for a picture, and I quickly counted heads to make sure everyone was visible in the photo. I came up with the number eight, but was thinking (and saying): Who is missing? There are only eight kids in this picture? Duh - pregnant mom brain moment. The kids were like - Wait a minute, there are only eight of us, why are you thinking there should be nine? So yeah, the cat was out of the bag at that point. :)

Haters of large families will never understand that one of the best gifts we can give our children are more siblings, and the knowledge that all of them are very much wanted and loved. Parents of many are often accused of not possibly being able to spend time enough with each child. This is absurd considering that none of our children have ever spent a day of their lives in daycare, have had a stay-at-home mom all along, and are all homeschooled, which puts our kids home for 40 more hours per week than kids who are in school. We could spend an hour and a half with each of them individually every day of their lives, and still get around to all of them during their waking hours. Such an absurd notion, born of people who are accustomed to shipping their kids off to be raised by others from the cradle up. Sheesh!

But even if it were true that our children get less time with us parents - they get lots more time with their siblings, which is what they really want. I grew up in a family of five, and never once did the thought cross my mind that we were being short-changed in the area of parental attention. I have memories of doing things with just my mom on occasion, but I have far more memories of games I played with my siblings, and the great times we had with each other. Kids are not as keen on having the undivided attention of their parents as some seem to think they are. Siblings are so much funner for getting into mischief with!!

Of course, these same people will then go on to claim that our generally neglected and poorly attended children are made to slave in the family household from dawn to dusk, as we parents are eating bonbons, taking a nap, or busy making more babies. Whoever thinks that any child on the face of this earth will keep working of his own volition, without being supervised, guided, encouraged, helped along, and instructed (again and again), has clearly never worked with children. Or has a hole in their head. Or both. Keeping kids working is a full-time job. In fact, keeping anyone working is a full-time job. It's called being a "manager," and people get paid big bucks to be one. Because as humans, getting us to work is a job in and of itself - at least until personal responsibility and work ethic are developed, something that is a characteristic of a mature adult, not a child. So to say that our kids are doing all the work while we are fooling around is not even possible.

Do our kids help around the house? Of course! Oh the horror - having jobs and being responsible for someone besides oneself! How in the world will they have the opportunity to grow into lazy, self-centered adults, if we do not first squash their natural desire to be a productive part of the family?

Having older kids is such a blessing! They know what needs to be done around the house, and at this point, often help out even without being asked. But believe me - they sure weren't born knowing how to be productive! They also love cooking, especially Isaac. For him, it is a huge treat when he gets to make dinner from scratch, all by himself. Talk about a win-win! The middle aged children help by playing with the younger ones, reading to them, etc. We have definitely reached at a point in our family life where even though we are super busy, life isn't getting that much harder as we add more kids. When you have one child and you add a second, your work load just doubled. When you have 8 and grow to 9, you are only increasing the work load by a little over 10%. The way we see it, we have always had a baby. Then we had a baby and a toddler. Then a baby, a toddler, and a preschooler. Those were the hardest, busiest days. Now, we still have that busy little baby, toddler, and preschooler - but we also have (almost) two teens and three other older siblings to help keep the little ones busy and out of trouble.We don't look at is as adding little people, we look at it as adding older helpers every couple of years, because the little ones have been with us for well over a decade now, whereas having increasingly older helpers is ever new.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

10-year Church Anniversary

You know how they say kids grow up in the blink of an eye? Well, in much the same way, it seems like just yesterday that we started our church. It certainly doesn't seem like a DECADE ago! Yet, in a little over 5 weeks from now, we are celebrating our 10-year church anniversary.

Aw, look at wittle Solomon in the front row! And Isaac asleep in his chair... And look, my husband with no beard! (March 2006)

And, much like a mom will look at her grown child and always see her "baby", I see our church as the same it was when we had our first service, in our living-room-converted-to-an-auditorium with just 9 people in the first service on Sunday morning, Christmas Day 2005. Five of those were our own family! The family of two of the ones who came are still members of our church, which is very dear and special to us. Our current Sunday morning record is 185 in attendance, set just this past week, and yet I look at the crowd and it seems like nothing has changed since those early days. Just a group of dedicated Christians who sincerely love the Lord, and each other.

Ah, memories! There have been many ups and the inevitable downs, much like anything in life. My husband and I love our church dearly, and are very blessed to be able to serve God through this ministry.

Some of our key members approached me months ago, sharing their hopes of making this anniversary an extra special one for my husband, who truly labors in the word and doctrine every single day. To that end, they have several surprises planned for him. Paul Wittenberger put together a short video that explains a little more about this, and someone else at our church has set up this website that has all the details, which I don't want to reveal here on the off chance that my husband is reading this post.






You might think, "Surprise? But you are writing about it on our blog?" Well, my husband and I have a little joke that he never reads my blog, and I never listen to his online sermons. It's true - we do live with one another, after all, which is like streaming preaching 24/7! And after a long day with the kids, he isn't one to seek out more stories and pictures of them on my blog. :)

Additionally, my husband has also been informed that surprises are being planned for him, and that there is a website with all the info. He has been asked not to visit this website should he see it promoted. So please feel free to share this post. I have held off sharing the website for several months, but since we are close to the special service, it's time to spread the info near and far, so as many as possible can join us on that special day.
So please visit the website here and join in the celebration!

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Our family is growing!

I'm not going to keep you guessing with cute pictures of kittens (though we had some) - no, the addition we are expecting is of the human kind - another little baby. :)

This ultrasound picture was taken when I was 7 weeks along.

And yes, just ONE baby. After all we went though with the last pregnancy, I was eager to find out that with only one baby on board this time, things should hopefully be blissfully uneventful. 

I am currently almost 13 weeks, so only days from entering the second trimester. This means baby is due in the latter half of May. All things considered, I am feeling well. Even when the morning sickness was at its peak, I was able to go camping, and was also fine on my little getaway last week. Be on the lookout for a more detailed post on what is helping me to keep the nausea at bay. I have been more tired than usual, but getting some extra hours of sleep each night has been helpful.
 
There are several other posts planned that address issues of answering the large family haters. Stay tuned! :)

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Micheal Pearl Makes a Fool of Himself (along with a lot of other Christians)

Remember when the Josh Duggar scandal first broke in May? I blogged about my thoughts on the situation at the time.

Back then, many naive Christians afraid to lose their favorite TV show started falling all over themselves not condemning Josh Duggar's actions (molesting four of his own sisters), but rather condemning those who thought his actions were inexcusable under any circumstances, those who were angered by the family basically portraying a lie, those who were calling out the family's hypocrisy.

 (source here)

After just a brief period of silence following the initial shock, many Christians with a public platform also came out in defense of Josh Duggar. Some that come to mind are Mike Huckabee, Matt Walsh, Kent Hovind, Michael Seewald, and many others. Fans by the thousands were calling for TLC to bring the show back, starting online petitions, and leaving tens of thousands of supportive comments and messages on social media.

(Note: Matt Walsh and Michael Seewald have since changed their tune.)

I understand that if people committed sins, even serious ones, in the past and have since sought forgiveness and changed their ways, we should give them a fresh start, and not even mention those past failures.

However, I don't believe that this applies to serious, harmful crimes like pedophilia that deserve the death penalty. Such people are beyond repair, or what the Bible calls reprobates - Romans 1 says they have "eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin." Tell me that doesn't describe Josh Duggar to a T! And when those same perpetrators then lift themselves up to national stardom, revolving entire seasons of their TV show around telling us how they supposedly stayed pure until marriage, it just becomes ridiculously hypocritical, and an object of public scrutiny and derision. If the Duggars seek the attention of millions of viewers, they cannot then hide behind "that's a private matter" when it's inconvenient. Remember, the only reason why 99.9% of us have ever even heard of them in the first place is because they chose to make their lives very public. Anyone with the least bit of prudence or discernment should have known that such a skeleton in the closet would inevitably be discovered. Evidently, the love of fame, money, and stardom won out.

Personally, back in May I found it very alarming how many claimed that Josh's actions were a fairly normal occurrence, something all people are tempted by, and not a worse sin than regular everyday sins. I also blogged about that.

(source here)

LOL about the "anonymous members!" Nothing electronic is ever truly anonymous. Be sure your sin will find you out!


Then, the latest scandal broke. In and of itself, the fact that a man was looking at porn or committing adultery is not really shocking these days, nor does it make someone a reprobate. Even David was an adulterer. The shocking aspect was the fact that Josh Duggar had been living a double life of the worst kind. His latest admissions threw even the good-thinking Christians for a loop, as the overwhelming reason why we were supposed to have forgiven Josh Duggar was the fact that the had allegedly repented, and was a new man. Which, clearly, he was not. And those who had blindly defended his actions not because they were excusable, but because they liked the family, had egg on their faces. Imagine if it came to light that Obama had a similar past as Josh Duggar - would Christians everywhere rally around him in support, proclaiming forgiveness, and insisting that it did not at all reflect on the current state of his character?

(source here)

Right in the middle of all this coming to light, I received the current issue of the "No Greater Joy" magazine in the mail, with the feature article being "Two-Front War on Christianity", written by Micheal Pearl. Or, as my husband calls him, the "homeless looking guy." Most people know him for his controversial book, "To Train Up a Child."

You can still find the article here, though after the latest details about Josh Duggar coming out, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not pull the article and post an admission of having judged falsely, along with an apology.

It became apparent right away as I read the article that it had been written and the magazine mailed out at the worst possible time - late enough to publish right as the second scandal broke, but early enough to get it out the door before the new issues came to light.

The article talks about how Christianity is facing war on two fronts: on one had from the world, the persecution coming from unbelievers. Secondly, from so-called "Christian Cannibalism." This is the part of the article I want to focus on.
 
 (source here)

There were many ridiculous points made in the article, but I will focus on the worst ones. They are representative of the nonsense that Christians everywhere have been repeating during this scandal.

  • "The second - and more destructive - wave in the war on Christianity is coming from within our own ranks. The actual physical persecution of Christians will not amount to much," "That is the disease that is killing the church," "The real threat to the church and modern Christian family is [...] coming from the pew in front of you"
Basically, forget everything you have read in Revelation about the Antichrist making war with Christians. The real danger according to Micheal Pearl are other Christians. #facepalm
  •  "many Christians have been induced to side with the accusers of the brethren," "blogs and Facebook are filled with Christian cannibalism," "Christians pile on like hungry wolves," Christians [...] loudly condemning the allegedly errant one"
This is not even factually true. The vast majority of Christians showed nothing but support and forgiveness for Josh Duggar. Even if it were true, that would not make it wrong, because we as Christians are supposed to judge righteously, show discernment, and warn others of evil perpetrators - not hush up about dangerous predators.
  • "Duggars were under attack," 
 Nobody attacked the Duggars. Their child did an evil deed, and brought this on the rest of the family. Would we say that a criminal on trial is "under attack?" Of course not.
  •   "I was highly impressed and proud to be a fellow believer with such an amazing family," "they handled the situation with their son in the best of all possible ways," "a godly response to a problem"
Sure! They did, in fact, do so well that we now know (some of) the rest of the story. ***sarcasm*** Let's judge the tree of the Duggar's parenting by its fruit: it's rotten. Their son DID NOT repent and forsake. Whatever they did to address the problem failed miserably.
I'd like to make one thing clear: either the parents want to say their 15-year old acted as a foolish child, and should not be held accountable for the sins of his youth. In that case, the responsibility lies with the parents, and they have to accept the fact that they failed.
Or they could say that at age 15, he should have known better, and that he was making his own decisions contrary to his upbringing and his parents' moral code, in which case they can no longer use his age as an excuse for his actions. 
  • "a problem that affects over 50% of the homes in America, including Christian homes" [referring to incest and molestation]
In what universe, Micheal Pearl? Surely, SOME Christian (in name only) homes face this problem. But most definitely not 50% of them. Cases such as this almost exclusively occur in broken homes, where derelict step-relatives and boyfriends commit evil acts against children. The Duggars are the exception that proves the rule, and even in their case, I am certain that Josh himself was first the victim of sexual assault himself.

So, yes, as much as I hate to be right in these types of situations, I must say "I told you so" when it comes to Josh Duggar.



Why is it so important to point out the fallacies in Pearl's article? Because Christians need to be warned, not told to simply assume the best about dangerous predators who self-identify as "being cured." They need to be taught how to recognize signs of impending doom, not close their eyes, plug their ears, stick their heads in the sand and pretend all is fine in spite of glaring warning signs. Maybe that explains why Micheal Pearl thinks that incest is to be expected in 50% of all households.

In order to protect our loved ones, it is vitally important to understand that cases such as that of Josh Duggar are NOT random and unpredictable, not something that can befall anyone, not something that there are no warning signs of. If you have not yet done so, please read my previous blog post of why there is not a pedophile lurking inside all of us

Please also watch this sermon, and learn the doctrine of someone becoming a reprobate.




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

Thursday, August 6, 2015

The myth of the perfect homeschool curriculum, and what we use

I don't like to think of myself as "veteran" anything, but now in my 12th year of homeschooling, I guess that's what I am, or at least am thought of as being. Our kids this year are in grades 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, and K5. Like you haven't already heard a million times before, enjoy your kids while they are little, because times goes by sooo fast! I remember teaching the oldest boys their letters, and it doesn't seem right that it happened as long ago as it did. 

Many times I am asked about my favorite curriculum, what I use, or what I would recommend. Of course I like to help other moms starting out on the homeschool journey, but I also want to caution them against the idea that there is such a thing as a perfect curriculum that works for all kids, all grades, from K through 12th grade. That's like asking me what I think a perfect spouse is like - my ideas and preferences are not those of someone else.

There are three main reasons why I believe there is no such thing as one curriculum that a homeschool parent can settle on once and for all:

- Learning style: Everyone is different, and what works for one child, may not at all work for another. To illustrate this, think about this: when getting directions, do you prefer a drawn map with the route, or do you prefer written/verbal directions? I am lost with the latter, I have to "see" where I am going. My husband is exactly the opposite. Kids are the same way - what clicks with one does not click with another.

- Aptitude: One child may be a math whiz, another may struggle with it, but excel at a different subject. The 8th grade level book that works for one child, may totally go over another child's head, who will need a less demanding curriculum in that particular subject.

- Interest: Not only do kids get bored using the same curriculum year after year, but so do we as homeschool moms! It's nice to change things up and switch curriculum around a bit to keep everyone engaged and interested in learning. 

Of course, switching around too much is not only costly, it also takes up much space to store your materials, and makes it difficult for the parent to become an expert at teaching any one subject with ease because he/she is not familiar with the curriculum.

All that being said, here is a little chart of what I have nailed down as our favorite curricula for the core subjects after over a decade of homeschooling. This chart includes the various options in each subject to allow for the three factors mentioned above.  

This is just what we do, what works for us, and may look totally different for someone else.

 And here is Week 1 of this year's lesson plans (if you click on the picture, it should come up bigger):


The colors are for the different children, and correspond to "their" identifying color in our family. Orange: Solomon, 10th grade; Green: Isaac, 8th grade; Blue: John, 6th grade; Turquoise: Miriam, 4th grade; Purple: Rebecca, 2nd grade; Pink: Anna, K5

For the first year ever, I was able to write all 36 weeks of lesson plans, complete with activities and field trips, for the entire year! Which is exciting, because it really helps the kids be able to work more independently, and us all to stay motivated and on track. 

This was our first week of school, and it went very well. We typically do field trips on Friday morning, and then finish up loose ends and go to the library on Saturday. 

I hope this helps someone else out there! :)


Monday, July 20, 2015

Nakedness, Modesty, and Breastfeeding

This sermon my husband preached yesterday is spot on and full of biblical truth, cutting through opinions and worldly views commonly shrouding these topics in today's society. 




I am thankful that at our church, we do not have a problem of breastfeeding mothers being persecuted, simply because we started the church and have taught the people we have reached right from the start. I do feel bad for ladies and mothers being confronted with these issues virtually everywhere else, though.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Body weight and fertility

Disclaimer: As if you didn't already know this, I am reminding you that I am not a doctor or medical professional. I am sharing what I have learned in hopes of helping someone who struggles with infertility. 



As the mother of a large family, and married to a pastor who preaches against birth control, sometimes people get the idea that I am surrounded by nothing but ladies having one baby after another. And while it is true that many of my Christian friends and acquaintances likewise welcome all children as a blessing, and consequently have large families, there are almost just as many ladies who wish they had a(nother) child,  but struggle with infertility.

You see, trusting God with your family size does not equal having a large family. It simply means that you put God in charge of your fertility, whether that means not preventing children by way of birth control,  or likewise also not using assisted reproductive technology to artificially grow your family.

Modern technology and medicine can be a blessing, but it can also be used as a tool to play God. How can we tell where to draw the line of what is acceptable, and what is not? In regard to infertility, our test has always been: does this measure simply restore health, or does it go beyond that? Does it save, or does it destroy life? If a lady has medical issues that can be fixed, which prevent her from becoming pregnant, then by all means, address the underlying problems in hopes of becoming pregnant. Examples could be: hormone balances are off, the body is not producing enough progesterone, there are cysts/fibroids etc.  All these issues, when addressed, restore a normal state of health. Whereas if we think of other options out there today, such as IVF, using a surrogate, sperm/egg donation, etc., these all go beyond restoring natural health, and fall into the "playing God" category. 

To recap so far, I am not a stranger to counseling ladies regarding infertility, and I believe measures that restore normal health are morally acceptable.

With all that being said, I believe the vast majority of ladies struggling with infertility fall into two categories: they either weigh too much (BMI greater than 30), or they weigh too little (BMI less than 20). Both seem to be equally prevalent. 

That is the quick assessment. The BMI thresholds are not necessarily accurate for every individual. On a deeper level, it really is not so much body weight, as the underlying diet that is to blame, but for most of us diet/health and weight go hand in hand, so using body weight is a good indicator for most. I mention this because there are some people within normal weight ranges who struggle with infertility due to their diet, while others eat too much healthy food and are very overweight but fertile. However, the majority of people struggling with infertility tends to be either over- or underweight. 

For those on the underweight end of the spectrum, a lack of consuming healthy fats in adequate quantities is a huge part of the problem. The right kinds of fats are absolutely vital to proper hormone production, which in turn control every process in our body, including reproduction. However, skinny people often believe the once prevalent but false notion that fats are unhealthy, when the truth is that natural fats are very healthy, whereas man-made fats are what is destructive. 

Also, simply not eating enough will not provide the body with enough nutrients to grow another human, which is why the rates of miscarriage are much higher in severely underweight and anorexic ladies. 

For those on the overweight end of the spectrum, either an over-consumption of bad fats, and/or of sugar and simple carbs, will wreak havoc on health and reproduction. While fats often get the bad rap for being destructive to health, this blame should really be placed on sugar and simple carbs. These simple sugars, when consumed regularly even in moderate quantities, are stored by the body as fat, and in the long run cause insulin resistance. Ultimately, this can lead to type II (acquired) diabetes, which simply means that the body is no longer able to produce enough insulin to even convert this excess sugar into fat. In the case of uncontrolled diabetes, excess sugar remains in the blood stream, where it can lead to diabetic shock, coma, and death.

Simple carbs that should be all but eliminated include sugar, white flour and other simple grains, starchy foods like potatoes, sodas, other high-glycemic index foods such as fruit juice, and for those struggling with insulin resistance, even sweet fruits like grapes, melons, and the like.

Healthy fats that should be consumed daily to the tune of at least 2 tablespoons per day include butter, tallow/lard from pasture-fed animals free of hormones, antibiotics, or GMO feed, and some naturally saturated plant fat like palm and coconut oil, as well as unheated olive and avocado oils. Some foods that are naturally high in healthy fats are fatty fish like salmon, nuts, eggs, whole milk products, and avocados. People struggling with infertility would do well to consume these daily.

Fats to be avoided at all cost, even in small amounts, are: vegetable oils such as corn, canola, or soy etc, man-made fats like margarine, store-bought "lard" or shortening, or any other hydrogenated fats. This also includes any ready-made foods and snacks that contain these, which includes virtually all conventional, packaged goods (e.g. cookies, chips, cakes, fast food, anything fried, etc.)

Further avoided should be simple sugars and carbs, especially in liquid form. These will destroy your metabolism and hormone balance, in turn preventing you from being able to become pregnant.



In a nut shell, my advice to those struggling with infertility is: If you are underweight, seek to gain weight and achieve a BMI of over 20 by daily consuming healthy fats, in combination with complex carbs. If you are overweight, switch to only consuming healthy fats, and drastically reduce your intake of sugar and simple carbs, while aiming to lose about 5-10% of your body weight. If there is no known underlying cause of your infertility, this will almost certainly allow you to become pregnant.


Saturday, June 13, 2015

Breastfeeding and Modesty

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. - Ecclesiastes 12:13


A recent status shared by my husband on his Facebook wall has made me realize how much confusion there is amongst Christian ladies and mothers regarding breastfeeding and the question of modesty.




As the verse at the top of this post says, it is important that we look at God's commandment(s) regarding this issue, so we know what to follow rather than being led by our sex-crazed society that puts women on birth control wholesale, and sees them mostly as objects to gratify men's lusts rather than as nurturers and mothers.

First off, let's see how God defines nakedness

Exodus 28:42  And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

nakedness = loins unto the thighs, or what we would call waist to the top of the knee

Isaiah 20:4  So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt

God in Leviticus 18 talks about all sorts of scenarios between both men and women of who should not uncover who's nakedness, but there is no alternative definition of nakedness given for women that expands it to include the upper body. 

Quite to the contrary, by relating "uncovering a woman's nakedness" with "uncovering the fountain of her blood," the Bible reiterates that nakedness is referring to the part of the body from waist to knee (loins and thighs in Bible words). 

Leviticus 18:19  Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. 

Leviticus 20:18  And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.


THAT is the only correct definition of nakedness - loins to thighs. My husband has been preaching this all along, even as far back as 2006.

Not radical Islam that says a woman must be covered literally from head to toe, including gloves and a screen over her eyes, because virtually any part of a woman's body can be sensual in nature to men. Examples are: dainty feet, luscious lips, tender eyes, a perfectly curved calf, hair in soft curls, feminine hands, etc.

Not the nudist idea that says if you have a hat on you are not naked.

Sometimes, vague verses are used to try and teach for commandments the doctrines of men, such as 

1 Corinthinans 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 
The argument being that even though the Bible does not define breasts as nakedness, we all know that they are. Well, we DON'T all know that, and one cannot just add to God's Word to suit their opinions or "common sense." In the passage in Corinthians, God does not leave us to guess what correct hair length is, along the lines of, "Well, I don't need to talk about hair length, because you all know about that in your heart anyway." On the contrary, God devotes a huge section to telling us about the length of men's hair and women's hair, and He just follows it up with a comment that even just nature itself also confirms this law of God. Get it? Nature confirms the law as fully expressed in the Bible, it does not substitute for the law, or generate it. The verse does not give someone who feels in their heart that something is right or wrong a cart blanche to impose that opinion on others.

Nakedness is a very shameful sin, except between husband and wife. As such, God gave us clear, consistent commandments in the Bible as to what defines nakedness. It is not left up to personal opinions that disregard the Bible. The upper body is never once defined as nakedness, and I defy anyone to post a verse to the contrary. 


Breasts, breast, breasts


If the word "breast" makes you cringe, consider this: the Bible uses "breast" 18 times, "breasts" 27 times, "paps" 4 times, and "teats" 3 times. 

Indeed, if the word "breast" makes you cringe on the inside, you have been influenced (and not for the better) by our weird, twisted society that views women only as objects for the sexual gratification of men since reproduction has all but gone by the wayside, an afterthought of sorts. Breasts have been blown out of proportion as sexual objects because we have lost touch with the fact that women are mothers and nurturers first and foremost. Under normal circumstances, a woman's breasts will be used ten times as often to feed a baby, than to satisfy their husband's righteous desires.

To further illustrate my point of breasts being overly sexualized, consider this: it is entirely acceptable to use the word "nipple," but only in the context of "bottle nipple." We even try to make them look and feel and function as close to the real deal as possible, yet nobody bats an eye if you pull your fancy breast-replica bottle nipple out, or even drop it off with baby in the nursery.



Personally, I have always found these rubber replicas to be far more explicit than a woman breastfeeding without a cover, since the real nipple is actually in the baby's mouth and out of view. If someone made a replica of the part of men's or women's private parts that the Bible defines as nakedness, I certainly wouldn't want to show and pass that around any more than the real thing, because even a replica would still be obscene. 

If breasts are nakedness, or even just terribly immodest, why are we publicly displaying these life-like replicas without so much as a blush?

Before you pass out, read on, because then there is 

The question of modesty

1Timothy 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; 

Proverbs 31:25  Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

Are breasts sexually appealing? Of course they can be! Is that their primary or even predominant function? No. 

Many guys find ladies' feet and/or calves appealing, too. In fact, for decades, many churches taught that ladies ought always to wear closed shoes and hosiery in order to not lead men into lusting after them. On the other hand, there is an entire style of shoes - high heels - that accentuates this part of ladies' bodies. But the primary function of our feet is still to get us from point A to point B, not to strut around and get attention. You will never see me wearing such "hooker shoes". Not because they expose my nakedness (because they don't), but because they are immodest, drawing attention to my body merely for the sake of drawing attention, rather than for any practical purpose. It is the presentation that makes such displays immodest, not the very fact that I have feet, that I use them, and that I don't cover them in tights and closed shoes. 

By the same token, if women go topless, have plunging necklines over push-up bras, have implants, show cleavage, etc. they are doing all this for the sensual and vain reason of putting their body on display. Immodesty = seeking attention

A woman breastfeeding, on the other hand, is doing so 100% for the express and practical purpose of feeding her child. She is not seeking the attention of gawkers, and is therefore not immodest. 

By this correct definition of immodesty, a woman who struts around in high heels, with a fancy hairdo, covered in jewelry and make-up is still immodest, even if she covers up when she breastfeeds, because she is seeking to draw vain attention to her physical features. 

Lamentations 4:3  Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.
Here is a quick science lesson: whales (or sea monsters, as the Bible calls them) do not actually have breasts in the sense of that being some appendage like an udder; they have mammary slits. Nor do they have anywhere to pull these breasts out of, nor do they have hands to pull them out with. God is using this metaphor to say that even whales do more for their young than these wicked women, who should be the ones drawing out the breast and giving suck to their young. 

Drawing the breast out of where? The clothes, of course, since there is nothing else to pull them out of. Drawing out the breast, to then cover it with a blanket? Hardly!



Why not just cover up?

Well, why don't YOU eat your meals under a blanket? There are many reasons, such as 

- heat and stuffiness for mom and baby
- baby wants to see mom
- mom wants to see baby
- baby wants to study and learn about the world around them
- baby wants to hear what's going on
- new moms have a difficult time getting a good latch blindly
- blankets and those hideous nursing bibs draw more attention, not less
- covers further push the idea of over-sexualized breasts

However, all these pale in comparison with the biggest reason not to cover up while breastfeeding: Because it hampers healthy breastfeeding. 

A baby wants to eat under a blanket as much as you want to eat by yourself in a sterile white room without being allowed to read, talk, look out the window, play on your phone, etc. You would hurry up and finish the meal, so you can get back to the funner parts of life. So yes, get a baby hungry enough, and he might sit still under a blanket long enough to fill his tummy, which in a baby over 3 months takes about 3 to 5 minutes. But they will not want to linger at the breast, suckling on lazily while taking in the world around them. THAT kind of nursing is prerequisite for most moms to make lactational amenorrhea (LA) work for them. If you only ever, or mostly, cover up while nursing, your baby will spend a small fraction of the time on the breast that it would if they were uncovered. Not to mention all the bonding and close contact you and baby miss out on when separated by a "veil". 

God could have made milk come out of our pinkies if He had so chosen. He could have made it so babies eat table foods from birth. But no, in His wisdom He designed our bodies to nurture our babies in our bosoms, where they can smell us, see our faces at the ideal distance that their little eyes are attuned to at birth, and hear our heart beat that is so familiar to them from the womb. We moms, while gazing down at our baby's sweet face that God designed to be most appealing to us in its features, are so much more likely to sit and linger, put our feet up for a much-deserved rest, and admire God's perfect handiwork, rather than just getting the job of feeding baby done in a matter of minutes, and propping him up in some bouncy gadget while we tackle the never-ending housework.

Breastfeeding is God's design to allow a lady's body to recover from one pregnancy before embarking on the next. Breastfeeding hormones, like all hormones, are fickle and easy to disrupt. Just as the baby needs to be skin to skin with mom, suckling all night by her side, to make LA work, so extended breastfeeding throughout everyday activities is crucial. It's simply not possible under a blanket - no baby wants to do that.

Other suggestions, such as nursing without a cover, but off in another room, or staying home from all outside activities while baby is breastfed, are too ridiculous for me to address in detail. Obviously, no mom of many can leave the main part of the house and retreat to her bedroom, leaving the other kids unsupervised, for hours each day. And no husband wants to take on the outside responsibilities of his wife for two to three decades of their married life.

Women who pontificate about breastfeeding under a cover likely only have their token child or two, or they use birth control. If they don't, they will have children spaced very closely. Sure, there are a few women who will never have a cycle even if they just nurse their baby once every 24 hours, but that is the exception. Most moms, unless they breastfeed extensively each day, will have their cycles return too soon to be healthy or sustainable. 

There are many reasons why we should allow God's design to space our children. One important reason is that it allows us moms to "reset" our bodies between pregnancies, lose the baby weight instead of packing on more and more over time. Also, when our hormones are not out of whack, we women tend to be better wives and mothers, which in turn sets the atmosphere for the home. Cover up at what expense? So you can be a short, snippy, angry wife and mother, run ragged by having a baby every year? There is nothing like sitting down with baby for a half an hour, nursing and cooing, to lift mom's mood through endorphins and calm her frayed nerves. She might even sneak in a short nap! Under a cover? No baby will go for that for more than mere minutes.


But what about men's lusts?

A scantily clad  woman will be viewed as a sex object, and lusted after by unrighteous men. A lady breastfeeding is viewed as a mother, and as such, occasions little to nothing in the way of temptation. 

Only a hypocrite would expect women to only breastfeed while covered, even as they watch TV every day where women are flashy, immodest, and show their breasts for purely sexual appeal all day long. Cover up in front of your teenage son, who is sitting next to you on the sofa watching some harlot on TV? Yeah, that's really important - not!

Just because a lady does not use a blanket to cover up while breastfeeding, does not mean she has to be completely exposed. A shirt can easily be pulled down if need be, and baby's body is covering most of mom's midsection.



If a man is making a point to gawk and catch a glimpse of skin, if he is drawn into temptation and lust from seeing a non-descript sliver of skin that may as well be part of the upper arm as part of the breast, then there are far greater problems at work. A man who is satisfied with his own wife, having his appetites met by her in righteous marital intimacy, will not struggle with lust from seeing a breastfeeding woman, or catching a glimpse of her breast. Ladies, keep your husbands fed, and they won't go through life so starved that breastfeeding mothers suddenly start looking appealing.

Proverbs 27:7  The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.

Furthermore, as stated above, we cannot expect ladies to cover up to accommodate all of men's personal whims, unless we want to mandate burqas. The Bible has enough commandments in it, we don't also need to add our own to it. 




In conclusion

If you want to cover up, more power to you. But don't impose your opinions on others, as there is no command in the Bible that tells ladies to cover up to feed their babies.

Per law, mothers can breastfeed in any public or private space that the mother is legally allowed to be in, in every state in the U.S. Don't let anyone tell you differently! 


 1871 in church

 1891
 1898

1900s

 1920s

1930s

1943

1946




 


 


For more beautiful breastfeeding pictures, please click here. It's worth a click, trust me!
Think these photos are anecdotal, the exception? Please share with me all the old pictures of women breastfeeding while covered, from back in the day when birth control was not used and we had normal views of breastfeeding mothers. Because they don't exist.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Premade swimsuits now available!



Alright everyone, drum roll please...

The finished swimsuits are up on my Cute & Covered website. The following sizes are currently available:

Child sizes 3T, 4
Youth sizes 6, 8, 12
Ladies size M.

We only have a very limited quantity of these models, so please order early for best availability.

The production cost for these swimsuits has been higher than we were originally quoted, which resulted in slightly higher prices for the child and youth sizes than we had anticipated.

However, we are so happy with the production quality, that we feel it is worth the additional cost to be able to offer commercial-grade, Made in the USA, local small-business merchandise at still very competitive prices.

If you like what you see, please consider telling your friends who might be interested in modest, stylish swimwear.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Not everyone is a closet pedophile

In the aftermath of the Duggar meltdown, all the good-thinking Christians who have less common sense than even non-believers (or my chickens for that matter) are falling over themselves pointing out, in various ways, that any and all of us are capable of being a pedophile or other sexual deviant.

Speak for yourselves, fools, because that is just not true. 

Before I go any further, let me repeat and quote myself here, because I am speaking in general terms relating to hard-and-fast reprobates and deviants, not necessarily Josh Duggar: "[...] I am not convinced beyond any doubt that Josh Duggar himself had reached that point of being a reprobate pedophile when he did what he did." 

Take, for instance, the much circulated blog post "Grace Greater Than Our Sin" by Michael Seewald, the father-in-law of Jessa Duggar Seewald.

In the paragraph headed "Filthy Rags", we read this:

Many times it is simply lack of opportunity or fear of consequences that keep us from falling into grievous sin even though our fallen hearts would love to indulge the flesh. 

By itself, the statement would ring true for many sins and many people. But we are talking pedophilia, molestation, and incest here. No, that is not a desire that even the flesh of an unsaved person wants to indulge in, or what the Bible calls "natural man" (as opposed to spiritual). These sexual deviancies are, as the Bible says, "against nature". 

Let me illustrate: every normal man with a pulse has a natural inclination to get satisfaction from looking at women. Eye candy. A godly man will remind himself that to look on a woman to lust after her, even in his heart, is committing adultery in his heart, and will make a point to avert his eyes.

But not one, none, not a single, not even one man that is not a complete reprobate, dirty, incorrigible beast beyond the point of no return would ever have to put forth any effort not to feel lust when looking at a child, a next-of-kin, an animal, or someone of the same gender. Guys lust after women, not children, not Fido, and not their male buddy. Unless they are a sexual pervert, which is NOT a part of everyone's sin nature. That kind of debauchery is a symptom of someone who hates God, does not want to retain God in his/her knowledge, and has been given over to do these acts that go against nature itself. 

Even the world knows this. We don't have co-ed prisons so as to not add that level of desire to fornicate. But we don't just put everyone in solitary. Because only complete perverts are tempted by these things.

For Michael Seewald to publicly declare that we are kept from committing these acts through "lack of opportunity or fear of consequences" is as sickening as it is troublesome. Speak for yourself, Mr. Seewald. Most of us were never tempted by so reprobate a sin.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:

No mention of being a homo or pedophile. All sins are NOT equal, and some sins only appeal to those with seared consciences. 

There were other stupid things in the blog post, but it would take too much of my time to go through them one by one. You lost me at admitting to being tempted by these sins yourself. 

Then there is a document originally published by the clowns at ATI / IBLP, which has resurfaced amidst this brouhaha, "Lessons from Moral Failures in a Family"

This document is enough to make any sane reader throw up in his mouth, become enraged, or both. Don't let the fact that the founder and leader of IBLP has been implicated in sex scandals with 34 women barely old enough to consent trouble you. He is ready to bring us gems such as this document, penned by a mother and her (now supposedly penitent) son who molested his younger siblings. 

The molester and his mom go on to dispense such wisdom as that modesty within the home, amongst siblings, is paramount so as to avoid lusting after one another. What the heck??? If that is not disgusting, I don't know what is! I grew up with two older brothers. We took baths together when I was old enough to remember, and none of this ever made me want to touch them, or them me. Because children are children. Sexual thoughts do not cross their minds any more than world politics, unless they have first been polluted by a pervert/TV.
The article goes on to give examples of opportunities that might induce lust, such as changing a diaper (so we are talking a baby), helping a younger sibling with their bath, or the typical streaking that all preschoolers are known for as they have no concept of sexuality, and don't need to have one at that age. Hugs, rough-housing, wrestling, babysitting a younger sibling, even sitting on an older sibling's lap for story time are warned against, becuase they can all lead to: whoops - I just molested my baby sister!

That is great advice when you are living with a pedophile under your roof, true. But normal children are not pedophiles, and should not be treated as such. The way to prevent a child from becoming a predator is by protecting him from being molested by outsiders.

All this mother and son know is that whatever they did that led to him molesting his siblings was a failure. There are a million and one ways to fail. Just because they have figured out one of those ways, does not mean that their advice now is sound. It just might be yet another way to fail in a different manner. Why not get advice from someone who DIDN'T raise a pedophile, and an organization NOT spearheaded by a board of sex offenders??

To hear why these ministires are always full of freaks, weirdos, phoneys, and sex predators, please watch this sermon.






Another argument that is being made by Diary of an Autodidact in his post "How Fundamentalism's Teachings on Sexuality Create Predatory Behavior" is that it is the restrictive teachings on sex that make kids act this way, that if they were allowed access to girls outside their family, they would not be doing this. The argument being that they are not violating kids because they are after kids, but that it is just the only thing available to them. Again, there is an implication of "we are all capable of this when that is our only opportunity," and it's just not true.
Anyone knows that feeding into a lust only makes that appetite stronger. Giving in to fornication does not satisfy the desire for more than 5 minutes, at which point it will come roaring back stronger than ever. By the author's logic, kids in school should be instructed to smoke pot, so as to keep them from getting into heroin and cocaine. Lunacy!

All that is not to say that these organizations don't give kids weird and twisted ideas about sex being bad or dirty or shameful, because they do. But setting a Biblical standard cannot be implicated in kids turning out perverts.


Then there is an army of defensive bloggers focusing on how the victims have been victimized again, such as this one or this one, and that for this reason alone, the skeleton (more like a rotting corpse in this case) should have remained in the closet. And to some extent, that is, sadly, very true. It is awful that the Duggar girls had to have their names and faces publicly attached to this.

Except what about the girls that are yet to be victimized, something that may be prevented by exposing the perpetrator? Maybe if we executed rapists and child molesters when it first comes out, we would not have to make victims relive the horrors of their abuse when we have to air it yet again in an attempt to warn others. Maybe if the parents had resisted the temptation, motivated by pride or greed, to become international celebrities, this would have gone away much more quietly? But again, there is this idea that this could befall anyone, and having a child molester for a son is not unusual enough to abstain from playing the part of a moral, upstanding, Christian family on national TV.

Maybe, just maybe, God was right all along. If we would execute these molesters and pedophiles, they would not have infiltrated society. And maybe if Christians read their Bibles and believed it cover to cover, they would not be playing into the agenda of NAMBLA and others by spouting off the same disgusting nonsense that there is a pedophile lurking in all of us.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. - Hosea 4:6