If you hadn't had kids...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
If you hadn't had kids...
1649
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 10:34pm
And your dh made enough $$ to support both of you comfortably, do you think you would be working?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 5:42pm
So if you believe that motherhood and SAH are interchangable, do you find it acceptable for a woman to WOH for financial reasons?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 5:44pm
"Knowing something is going to be incredibly hard and exhausting does not, imo, make it less incredibly hard and exhausting."

I tend to disagree. I think having realistic expectations is more helpful than having unrealistic expectations, in that it's hard/exhausting enough without also having to deal with feelings of depression and/or let down on top of everything else.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 5:49pm
About her childs pre-school she posted:

"Yes. I go in to help pass out cookies & koolaid for snack or I provide that snack. I go in to read to the class or to run copies, lamenate (spelling?), fold newsletters for the teacher or secretary."

Sure sounds like volunteering to me.

Not trying to insult her at all and in fact I have not insulted her. This is a debate board and I am just pointing out an inconsistanacy in her posts. In other words I am debating her.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:00pm
actually it's almost funny because one whole table at the bar-mitzvah has 3 home-health aides, our nurse, two nannies (1 current & 1 former) and two babysitters....

impersonal....LOL. i think she's making up her own definitions again. she's very good at that.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:00pm
And I told YOU that I was looking at the volutneering stand point from a different angle (hospitals, charities, etc) and that yes, while this is volunteering, I just see it more as a parental responsbility to do my part than volunteering, although it is the big v.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:05pm
<> for the 1,000th time?????? no way. why not look them up in the archives as we've hashed this out ad nauseum and you still don't get it.

<>

NO.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:09pm
Well, it may not be true of pre-60s Methodism, but is sure is of POST-60s Methodism. I"m a lifelong Methodist, the daughter and granddaughter and GREAT granddaughter of Methodists, and I'm here to tell you,, it's absolutely true of post-60s Methodism! LOL....and funny besides.

And hey...Episcopalians are just Roman Catholic Methodists ;)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:19pm
My DH refers to the Episcopal Chrurch as being Catholic Light.

Hugs,

Bridget & Ethan (5)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:24pm
They were slightly off on the Baptists. They would have to have a pot luck dinner. No decisions are ever made without food in hand.


Edited 5/25/2004 7:21 pm ET ET by texigan
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:31pm
"That would be a pretty bizarre thing for a Christian to accept, don't you think? I mean, if we're still sacrificing animals as atonement, why do we need Christ?"

I didn't say Christians *still* accepted animal sacrifice LOL. I am well aware that animal sacrifice took place *only* in the Old Testement, that is, prior to the New Testement. However, animal sacrifice was, in fact, used/accepted as a means of atonement for sin, regardless of *when* it took place right?

Actually, only *Christians* need Christ LOL. *I* don't need anything (animals, humans or otherwise) to atone for sin because I hardly believe that killing an animal, or a human has anything remotely to do with the taking away of/atoning for sin. Why exactly do you think it does?

Do you honestly believe that killing/sacrificing an animal somehow *took* (meaning prior to the New Testement) away a person's sin? How? Likewise, do you honestly believe that killing/sacrificing a human (whether he choose it freely or not) actually takes away the *need* to atone for sin? Again how? As far as I'm concerned, Chistianity is nothing more than mythology (ok it's also the most horribly violent religion that has ever existed as well). Moreover, I don't even believe in the concept/idea of *sin* in the first place. What *you* call *sin*, I would simply call *human nature*.

"I am unaware of a single instance of Christian or Judaic human sacrifice."

Of course not, LOL Jesus *supposedly* took away the need to atone for sin right? Why would there be any instances of human sacrifice *after* Jesus?



Pages