Annie

Yes, and it is the responsibility of the leaders to help their flocks grow in discernment. If large numbers of our congregations are attracted by the "success" of false teachers, then we need to ask ourselves why. Is it because we (the leaders...well, not me, but you, and my husband, and my pastor, etc.) are trying to "spell everything out for them," or teaching that the Bible spells everything out? If so, that's a hindrance to their growth in discernment. I think this is part of the problem I've observed...Not in your church, since I don't know you (and this isn't directed at anyone on here necessarily, since I'm not familiar with your ministries)...but pastors who "make rules" for everything, or hold up a list of "standards" for all church members to follow, or say, "Thus saith the Lord: rock mewsic is WRONG, and so is PAYANTS on WIMMEN--Kin ah git an AMEN?" really are not helping their flocks to develop discernment. They are treating them like children, and spelling everything out for them, even though Scripture does not spell everything out. This develops an unhealthy dependence on another person (just like Osteen's followers) who tells the member specifically what he can or cannot do, instead of showing the member how to lean on the Word and develop discernment for himself, guided by the Holy Spirit. No wonder the church is weak and immature and swayed by false doctrine! Such an approach to shepherding leaves no room for growth in discernment or spiritual maturity, since the "man of God" has everything all figured out and tells me every decision I need to make. Why think for myself when someone else is doing it for me? Pretty scary.

I think there's a natural tendency to use our own opinions as the yardstick by which we measure the ideas and opinions of others. All of us think we are "balanced," and tend to think of people who seem to be a few "standard deviations" to the right or left of us on any given issue as "hyper-something." For example, I'm sure some people on here think of me as "a liberal" since I don't see anything wrong with women participating in sports, or wearing modest pants, and am not KJVO. However, others might view me as "a conservative" because I believe that certain art forms (styles of music, for example) demean the gospel, and I wouldn't allow my kids to get tats or pierce their tongues, and I wouldn't send them to public school.

I've found that these terms (hyper-conservative, hyper-liberal, etc.) aren't at all useful in most discussions, because none of us see ourselves as others see us. Assigning labels doesn't aid the free exchange of ideas; it hampers it.

It doesn't bother me that others apply Scripture differently than I do; on the contrary, I rejoice that people are using scripture as their guide to faith and practice. The applications of others aren't my business, although it's fun to throw ideas around in a friendly manner. The thing that bothers me sometimes is when people throw out accusations (or at least negative insinuations) simply because another person is applying scripture differently than they would. It behooves us all to remember that we are not responsible for others, but only for ourselves. We all think differently, and shouldn't be surprised when someone disagrees with us in matters of practice.

Yea for NC!

P_Bear, I remember being in your situation 13 years ago and wondering the exact same thing. How I wanted to instill Scripture in my children from the earliest age! I used The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes--the one with realistic "painting-type" illustrations instead of the more cartoony ones in the current editions of that book. (Maybe you could find a used one at www.addall.com or something.) I would just sit with my babies and talk about the pictures..."This is Adam. This is Eve"...etc., and as they developed cognitively, I'd add things to the stories until finally I was reading the actual stories to them.
I also played Scripture for them at night: two lovely CD's that are now out of circulation called "Psalms in the Night" and--ooh, I can't remember the name of the other one right now, but it was comprised of Scriptures that focused on the death and resurrection of Christ. The CD's played soft, "night-time" music in the background, and a male voice and female voice alternated reading the Scriptures. The CD's were actually put together by a mom and grandpa who had the same desire for their kids as we do for ours.
Another thing I did was to make up my own cassette tapes for them to listen to during their "alone playtime." On the tape, I recited nursery rhymes, sang songs, and even had the kids sing along with me (they love hearing their own voices). I also included (more than once) a full passage of Scripture, like Psalm 1 or Psalm 23. I was surprised how soon the kids memorized what was on the tape. Their minds are like sponges!
God bless you as you rear your child for him!

Hello. I'm a first time mom and I have an 11-month old son. I want to start him early with Bible reading, but I don't know when to begin. I don't think that he will be able to understand (or even focus his attention) for long enough to read anything to him. We have a few books that have Bible stories in them... should I just start there? I have a friend who actually plays an audio Bible for their children while they are sleeping, but I'm not sure how effective that actually is. Does anyone have any suggestions on this?

Joshua, this post will not contain any links.

As to the "junk" and "filth", in my posts, are you aware that the first link is to Vacation Bible School material that will be shown to countless children this summer while they are at churches? Did you follow the second link to a news article about the upcoming trend of comic book producers? In my humble opinion, all adults should keep abreast of what's happening in an industry who's target audience is primarily young children.

Please forgive me for not realizing that you are planning to produce the "art form" being discussed. My choice of words and links may have been a little more diplomatic and probably would have addressed the issue in a different manner.

That said, we, as Christians, need more producers of QUALITY materials for children. As I mentioned in my first post, take a look at what's available today in Christian book stores. Using Noah, as an example, the ark is usually represented to be about the size of a small tug boat with cartoon Africian animals sticking their heads out the top. How many realistic renderings of the ark are found in anything produced for mass market appeal? And that includes the Christian market.

Being an oldtimer, I remember when quality children's books were the norm. I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems the trends for children's literature has fallen in line with the world's emphasis on Squarepants Bob, and the Simpsons. I used to read the comics page in the newspaper. Most if not all of the good/decent ones either disappeared or changed content. It's been a long time since I stopped reading them, so I don't have a good handle on what's being printed today as "comics". But, I can't imagine the trend has done a 180.

Again, one of the tag lines for this thread is "superheroes". The term brings up thoughts of Spiderman, Batman, and all the other caped crusaders. Modern day versions of Greek and Roman gods with powers beyond mere mortal man. Heros are ordinary people doing ordinary and extra ordinary things without mystic supernatural powers or golden lassos and invisible planes. A hero is the man who recently drowned after saving two other people. Not a man with x-ray vision or whatever the current super ability is being displayed by "superheroes".

You sound like a talented man with strong convictions. Is there any way you can achieve your goal of bringing quality Christian materials to children without those carrying a "comic, comic book, superheroes" connotation? Comics, comedy, caricatures, etc. are forms of entertainment with a lot of negative baggage associated with them. IMHO, there is a difference between a magazine with good stories and beautifully drawn illustrations and publications labeled "comic books".

I think you're defining at least the first issue correctly, Oldtimer. As a Christian--as someone who recognizes that God created (and is therefore the only one who can define the parameters of) the institution of marriage/family--I should be doing my best to help others toward being blessed by falling in line with that reality. Reality--the "way things really are"--transcends politics, society's opinions, etc. So, if I'm an estate planner, there's no way I'm going to encourage a "lifelong commitment" between sexual perverts, or encourage the adoption of children by said perverts. (IMO, a "lifelong commitment" is worse than an uncommitted homosexual relationship, because it shows that the participants are dead set on continuing in their perverted way of life, with little hope of repentance.)
As far as the second issue goes, I think society (unanchored upon truth as it is) is going to do whatever it wants, no matter what Christians say. Homosexual marriage and adoption are going to be commonplace by the time my grandkids are adults. My point is that my job as a Christian--as salt and light--is not to capitulate to the anti-biblical way of thinking and accept the radical redefinitions of marriage/family of a godless society.

I think you're defining at least the first issue correctly, Oldtimer. As a Christian--as someone who recognizes that God created (and is therefore the only one who can define the parameters of) the institution of marriage/family--I should be doing my best to help others toward being blessed by falling in line with that reality. Reality--the "way things really are"--transcends politics, society's opinions, etc. So, if I'm an estate planner, there's no way I'm going to encourage a "lifelong commitment" between sexual perverts, or encourage the adoption of children by said perverts. (IMO, a "lifelong commitment" is worse than an uncommitted homosexual relationship, because it shows that the participants are dead set on continuing in their perverted way of life, with little hope of repentance.)
As far as the second issue goes, I think society (unanchored upon truth as it is) is going to do whatever it wants, no matter what Christians say. Homosexual marriage and adoption are going to be commonplace by the time my grandkids are adults. My point is that my job as a Christian--as salt and light--is not to capitulate to the anti-biblical way of thinking and accept the radical redefinitions of marriage/family of a godless society.

From a biblical perspective, this is not a "couple" or a "family." The Bible is clear that homosexuality is unnatural and indicative of a depraved society (Romans 1). The Bible is also clear that "marriage" means a man and a woman (precedent established by God in creation, and echoed throughout Scripture as well as nature). Certainly, there were examples of polygamous heterosexual marriages in ancient Near Eastern cultures (which generally brought nothing but familial strife), but never once is same-sex "marriage" condoned or even mentioned, for that matter. All references to sexual relationships between same-gender persons are negative--it's not even ambiguous. All NT references to marriage/family assume one man with one woman, along with their children. There is no other option. All directives to married couples/families are to "wife," "husband," and "child(ren)." Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church: the head of the woman is the man, just as Christ is the head of the Church; the wife submits to the husband as the Church submits to Christ, and the husband loves the wife as Christ loves the Church. It's so clearly laid out; how anyone can miss it is beyond me. The Greek words for man, woman, husband, and wife are nonambiguous.

What you're really saying here, although you're supposedly asking for "the biblical perspective," is that there is a difference between what is going on in your mind and what the Bible really says. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Christian (or at least any Christian who is at all familiar with Scripture) could entertain even for one second the possibility that a homosexual relationship constitutes "marriage" or a legitimate "couple" or a "family." It's just ludicrous; I don't get it. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but it's just sad to see how the status quo of our culture has affected some Christians...how they so easily establish a new norm in their minds, not because of anything Scripture says, but merely because of changes in our culture. Culture becomes the standard instead of the Bible. Thoughtful discernment is thrown to the wind.

I'm not questioning the existence of people who don't follow God's plan for the family...who seek to redefine "family" to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nor am I questioning God's love for them (in the sense that He loves the world enough to die for them). How we as Christians relate to these people is indeed important...I agree with you there, too.


I'm not sure what your role is in the situation...Can you really "tell the couple to split"? If so, on what grounds, from their perspective? I'd have to know more about how you fit into the situation to have an opinion on what you should do. I don't think (from a biblical/moral, psychological, emotional, practical, or any other standpoint) that it is healthy, natural, or desirable for children to grow up with two parents of the same sex. Both boys and girls need a dad and a mom. That's ideal, of course...I'm not naive enough to think that that is how every family can be...There is death, and divorce, and single motherhood--all results of either direct sin or the curse that is on the earth because of sin. However, I believe it is much better for a child to grow up with a single parent--feeling the void that he should naturally feel due to the absence of the parent of the other gender--than to grow up nurtured by someone of perverse sexual desires and habits. In the first scenario, at least he gets some sort of idea (albeit only because he experiences the incompleteness) of what a proper family is. In the latter, he gets a completely false idea of what a family is...made all the more insidious because of the fact that he "feels" loved and nurtured by "two parents." Is it better to be raised by wolves (to learn wolfish habits) in a nice, cozy den than it is to be raised by mountain goats (to learn their toughness and hardiness) in the less-than-ideal environment of rocky hillsides and exposed mesas? (Stupid analogy? Maybe. But hopefully it makes my point, especially when you consider the two kinds of animals as symbols.)


Why wouldn't the legal issues encountered by two homosexual persons be the same as, say the legal issues encountered by two non-homosexuals who own anything together? I have two single friends who have lived together as housemates for years. Now, one of them is moving away due to a job change. They've bought a lot of things together...furniture, pets, etc. So, now who gets Fluffy and who gets Sammy? Who gets the couch and who gets the Keurig? They have to work it out just like anyone else would...and if any disputes arise, they can (hopefully) be settled by a mediator like a pastor, or in court if need be. Haven't these kinds of things been going on long before homosexuality became accepted in our society? Sure they have. We don't need "civil unions" between homosexuals any more than we need "civil unions" between siblings, parents and children, business partners, roommates, friends/acquaintances who invest/share things together or any other "partnership" which has the potential of running into a dispute rising out of a disagreement of "who owns what" when there is a parting of ways.

Unfortunately, children have the potential to become victims whenever sexual sin is involved. It's one of the things people who are bent on satisfying their lusts often don't even stop to consider. In certain cases, they build very real and strong emotional bonds that they have no business building with children, and it's tragic how this selfish behavior hurts the kids in the long run.


I've already addressed this, I think. It should be different for homosexuals because they are living in abomination to God. What they have is not a "family," but a gross aberration. It is not beneficial for any child to grow up with two mommies or two daddies. If anything, it only perpetuates the acceptance of sexual abnormality in society.

From a biblical perspective, this is not a "couple" or a "family." The Bible is clear that homosexuality is unnatural and indicative of a depraved society (Romans 1). The Bible is also clear that "marriage" means a man and a woman (precedent established by God in creation, and echoed throughout Scripture as well as nature). Certainly, there were examples of polygamous heterosexual marriages in ancient Near Eastern cultures (which generally brought nothing but familial strife), but never once is same-sex "marriage" condoned or even mentioned, for that matter. All references to sexual relationships between same-gender persons are negative--it's not even ambiguous. All NT references to marriage/family assume one man with one woman, along with their children. There is no other option. All directives to married couples/families are to "wife," "husband," and "child(ren)." Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church: the head of the woman is the man, just as Christ is the head of the Church; the wife submits to the husband as the Church submits to Christ, and the husband loves the wife as Christ loves the Church. It's so clearly laid out; how anyone can miss it is beyond me. The Greek words for man, woman, husband, and wife are nonambiguous.

What you're really saying here, although you're supposedly asking for "the biblical perspective," is that there is a difference between what is going on in your mind and what the Bible really says. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Christian (or at least any Christian who is at all familiar with Scripture) could entertain even for one second the possibility that a homosexual relationship constitutes "marriage" or a legitimate "couple" or a "family." It's just ludicrous; I don't get it. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but it's just sad to see how the status quo of our culture has affected some Christians...how they so easily establish a new norm in their minds, not because of anything Scripture says, but merely because of changes in our culture. Culture becomes the standard instead of the Bible. Thoughtful discernment is thrown to the wind.

I'm not questioning the existence of people who don't follow God's plan for the family...who seek to redefine "family" to mean whatever they want it to mean. Nor am I questioning God's love for them (in the sense that He loves the world enough to die for them). How we as Christians relate to these people is indeed important...I agree with you there, too.


I'm not sure what your role is in the situation...Can you really "tell the couple to split"? If so, on what grounds, from their perspective? I'd have to know more about how you fit into the situation to have an opinion on what you should do. I don't think (from a biblical/moral, psychological, emotional, practical, or any other standpoint) that it is healthy, natural, or desirable for children to grow up with two parents of the same sex. Both boys and girls need a dad and a mom. That's ideal, of course...I'm not naive enough to think that that is how every family can be...There is death, and divorce, and single motherhood--all results of either direct sin or the curse that is on the earth because of sin. However, I believe it is much better for a child to grow up with a single parent--feeling the void that he should naturally feel due to the absence of the parent of the other gender--than to grow up nurtured by someone of perverse sexual desires and habits. In the first scenario, at least he gets some sort of idea (albeit only because he experiences the incompleteness) of what a proper family is. In the latter, he gets a completely false idea of what a family is...made all the more insidious because of the fact that he "feels" loved and nurtured by "two parents." Is it better to be raised by wolves (to learn wolfish habits) in a nice, cozy den than it is to be raised by mountain goats (to learn their toughness and hardiness) in the less-than-ideal environment of rocky hillsides and exposed mesas? (Stupid analogy? Maybe. But hopefully it makes my point, especially when you consider the two kinds of animals as symbols.)


Why wouldn't the legal issues encountered by two homosexual persons be the same as, say the legal issues encountered by two non-homosexuals who own anything together? I have two single friends who have lived together as housemates for years. Now, one of them is moving away due to a job change. They've bought a lot of things together...furniture, pets, etc. So, now who gets Fluffy and who gets Sammy? Who gets the couch and who gets the Keurig? They have to work it out just like anyone else would...and if any disputes arise, they can (hopefully) be settled by a mediator like a pastor, or in court if need be. Haven't these kinds of things been going on long before homosexuality became accepted in our society? Sure they have. We don't need "civil unions" between homosexuals any more than we need "civil unions" between siblings, parents and children, business partners, roommates, friends/acquaintances who invest/share things together or any other "partnership" which has the potential of running into a dispute rising out of a disagreement of "who owns what" when there is a parting of ways.

Unfortunately, children have the potential to become victims whenever sexual sin is involved. It's one of the things people who are bent on satisfying their lusts often don't even stop to consider. In certain cases, they build very real and strong emotional bonds that they have no business building with children, and it's tragic how this selfish behavior hurts the kids in the long run.


I've already addressed this, I think. It should be different for homosexuals because they are living in abomination to God. What they have is not a "family," but a gross aberration. It is not beneficial for any child to grow up with two mommies or two daddies. If anything, it only perpetuates the acceptance of sexual abnormality in society.

From a biblical perspective, this is not a "couple" or a "family." The Bible is clear that homosexuality is unnatural and indicative of a depraved society (Romans 1). The Bible is also clear that "marriage" means a man and a woman (precedent established by God in creation, and echoed throughout Scripture as well as nature). Certainly, there were examples of polygamous heterosexual marriages in ancient Near Eastern cultures (which generally brought nothing but familial strife), but never once is same-sex "marriage" condoned or even mentioned, for that matter. All references to sexual relationships between same-gender persons are negative--it's not even ambiguous. All NT references to marriage/family assume one man with one woman, along with their children. There is no other option. All directives to married couples/families are to "wife," "husband," and "child(ren)." Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church: the head of the woman is the man, just as Christ is the head of the Church; the wife submits to the husband as the Church submits to Christ, and the husband loves the wife as Christ loves the Church. It's so clearly laid out; how anyone can miss it is beyond me. The Greek words for man, woman, husband, and wife are nonambiguous.

What you're really saying here, although you're supposedly asking for "the biblical perspective," is that there is a difference between what is going on in your mind and what the Bible really says. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Christian (or at least any Christian who is at all familiar with Scripture) could entertain even for one second the possibility that a homosexual relationship constitutes "marriage" or a legitimate "couple" or a "family." It's just ludicrous; I don't get it. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but it's just sad to see how the status quo of our culture has affected some Christians...how they so easily establish a new norm in their minds, not because of anything Scripture says, but merely because of changes in our culture. Culture becomes the standard instead of the Bible. Thoughtful discernment is thrown to the wind.

Yea for NC!

Yea for NC!

I think it's great that you're considering homeschooling your child. You have five or six years to research, gather information, supplies, and equipment, and evaluate the style that will work best for you and your child. Since a lot can change over that period of time, I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time obsessing over curriculum choices yet (especially since most curricula upgrade/update fairly regulary, and you don't want to be stuck with out-of-date editions or programs that won't be around--or compatible with your new-fangled technology--in five or six years).

Something you might want to think about is the approach to education you'd like to take. For us, that process started by us prayerfully making up a list of qualities (physical, spiritual, social, academic, etc.) that we wanted our children to develop by the time they leave our home. (We listed applicable Scripture next to each quality.) That list started us thinking about h/s-ing methods...do we want to sit our kids down in front of a video/DVD to learn? Do we want them to study U.S. history every year? How can we best teach them to be "big picture," critical thinkers? Which is better: the rigorous, rote-memory approach of ABeka or the more conceptual approach of BJU Press? (We use neither of those curricula, but have chosen one that seems to incorporate the best of both approaches.) What methods and curricula fit our purposes, personalities, schedules, budget, and lifestyle best? The best education isn't "cookie cutter;" it is customized to the bent, learning styles, and needs of each child. That's one of the reasons we chose h/s-ing in the first place. We love it! (Okay, by this time of year it's getting old, but we still love it! )

May God guide you as you seek to be the best daddy you can be to your new precious wee one!

I think it's great that you're considering homeschooling your child. You have five or six years to research, gather information, supplies, and equipment, and evaluate the style that will work best for you and your child. Since a lot can change over that period of time, I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time obsessing over curriculum choices yet (especially since most curricula upgrade/update fairly regulary, and you don't want to be stuck with out-of-date editions or programs that won't be around--or compatible with your new-fangled technology--in five or six years).

Something you might want to think about is the approach to education you'd like to take. For us, that process started by us prayerfully making up a list of qualities (physical, spiritual, social, academic, etc.) that we wanted our children to develop by the time they leave our home. (We listed applicable Scripture next to each quality.) That list started us thinking about h/s-ing methods...do we want to sit our kids down in front of a video/DVD to learn? Do we want them to study U.S. history every year? How can we best teach them to be "big picture," critical thinkers? Which is better: the rigorous, rote-memory approach of ABeka or the more conceptual approach of BJU Press? (We use neither of those curricula, but have chosen one that seems to incorporate the best of both approaches.) What methods and curricula fit our purposes, personalities, schedules, budget, and lifestyle best? The best education isn't "cookie cutter;" it is customized to the bent, learning styles, and needs of each child. That's one of the reasons we chose h/s-ing in the first place. We love it! (Okay, by this time of year it's getting old, but we still love it! )

May God guide you as you seek to be the best daddy you can be to your new precious wee one!

The only one that can truly be the "best" one is the original texts written by Moses, David, Paul, etc...

dskysmine, you are asking some good questions. Because Scripture so clearly prohibits women from holding the pastor/shepherd role within a local church, I believe that women should not seek those kinds of leadership positions. Does that mean that your girlfriend's master's in theolgy is useless? Not at all! If you read Titus 2, you will see how useful women can be in teaching and counseling other women. I have a ministry like that, and it is very fulfilling to serve within the role God has graciously given me.

Here are some Scriptures which deal with your question:

Genesis 2: The woman was clearly created to help the man, not the other way round.
Ephesians 5: The hierarchy is clearly spelled out here: the man/husband is head of the woman, and Christ is the head of the man, and God the Father is the head of Christ.
I Timothy 2: A woman is not to teach in church, but to remain in silence during the teaching time.

If you read carefully through the New Testament, you'll begin to see the theme developing along these lines; these passages are just scratching the surface of the issue.
Titus 2: A woman is commanded to teach and mentor other women in the church.

I'm sorry...I don't mean to pile on, but I must have missed this question before. No one is suggesting that a woman cannot teach her children, especially since Scripture says just the opposite. Her role within the home is a teaching role. But her role in the context of the local assembly of believers is a supportive, serving role, not a teaching role.

The authority for teaching is not based on superior cognitive ability or surpassing knowledge. It's based on Scripture alone. God has given the authority to teach in the church to men. It's not a matter of anyone being "superior," but of everyone living out their God-given roles in the church and home.

Here is a scenario to (maybe) help you understand...Let's say that I'm the vice president of XYZ corporation, and that several department heads in that corporation report to me and are responsible to follow the directives I send their way. I am "under" the president and "over" everyone else. Would I, the vice president of XYZ corporation, with all of my knowledge, administrative skills, and winning personality, be received very well if one day I decided to start giving directives to the local McDonald's fast food restaurant employees, and expected all of those employees to start reporting to me when those directives were carried out? No, because that's not my role at McDonald's. My role at McDonald's is "customer." Different place, different role.

My roles at home are "wife" and "mother." My roles at church are "learner" and "servant" when it comes to the general assembly and "teacher" when it comes to children and the "younger women" (Titus 2).

Is it not possible to learn about Baptists without comparing them to other denominations/religions?
I want to know what Baptists believe. How they live a close relationship with Jesus and what kind of things they do that make them the true Church.

Being honest does not mean I should expose myself in order to get hurt or to let someone inside a very personal aspect of my life, which is my relationship with God. I already had several situations where I was open about my Faith and how I live It but I ended up being mocked, disrespected and hurt deeply, so please allow me to hold on to that while I get to know you a little better. I don't mean that I will never reveal it, just that I need to know if saying it will only create barriers/conflict.
As I said, I am available to present every other part of myself. I was honest with my reason to be here and I am anxious to learn.
One in Christ,
D

I believe it is a sewing needle. The way Jesus phrases it in all three instances doesn't suggest a place, and even answers the apostles question "who then can be saved?" with this "the things that are impossible with man is possible with God. As for the historical explanation that states the camel can go through it, only after being unloaded and inspected ...well that would hardly be defined as impossible right?

Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Luke 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

I honestly don't think there is historical evidence of such a gate.

I would vote for him as the lesser of two evils, but I know others (Repubs) who wouldn't. I prefer a do-nothing president over a do-a-whole-lotta-stuff wrong president.

I would vote for him as the lesser of two evils, but I know others (Repubs) who wouldn't. I prefer a do-nothing president over a do-a-whole-lotta-stuff wrong president.

I don't have a lot of money to spend, either (right there with you, Steve!), and I've found the Veritas curriculum to be affordable. My oldest daughter--now in 8th grade--is going through church history and the Middle Ages right now in Veritas's Omnibus program, which combines three subjects that IMO should be studied together: history, literature, and theology. I will say that the Veritas curriculum is the thing I spend the most money on with my oldest, but once we have the books, all of the other kids can use them; the consumables can all be printed off the CD-ROM included with the curriculum. So, I spend $0 on them for history, Bible, and reading/literature every year.

This year, my oldest has read in their entirety and written essays about Eusebius's Church History, Augustine's Confessions, The Rule of St. Benedict, Bede's The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, and Beowulf (and one or two other books that I can't think of right now). As you guys pointed out with your book list, you can't beat reading primary sources. It's so much richer than reading the snippets and brief references that are cut and pasted into the typical Christian school "reading books" and Bible curriculum.