Created to be HIS! Has posted some gems recently...

[Patsy]

I have a friend (agnostic) who occasionally tells me about how some thing from a horror movie actually happens in 'the occult'. I've tried to broach a number of times that 'the occult' is a blanket term, not one unified, organised religion, but she'll still tell me about how in 'the occult', they have voodoo dolls, and possessions like that are actually real because in 'the occult' they do that.

I've tried telling her about Anton Lavey and the difference between that Satanism, other Satanism, real stuff that outsiders call 'Satanism' and made-up stuff that the, er, creators call 'Satanism'; about my experience with Wiccan friends in my teenaged years and the sorts of things they actually got up to... Nope. 'The occult does that!'

[Hane]

You should check out her post entitled "Harry Potter and Jesus." She didn't realize that The Onion was a parody site and posted several quotes from one of their articles to prove Harry Potter's evilness, including the gem: "Harry is an absolute godsend to our cause," said High Priest Egan of the First Church of Satan in Salem, MA. "An organization like ours thrives on new blood (no pun intended) and we've had more applicants than we can handle lately. And, of course, practically all of them are virgins, which is gravy."

Back when the first Harry Potter book first came out, Reader's Digest did a piece on J.K. Rowling. A couple of months later, it printed a letter to the editor from a reader clearly upset by the article. It went something like, "Why didn't you print the first letter I sent you? This book is EVIL because J.K. Rowling is a SATANIST," etc., and referenced the Onion parody as factual! The Reader's Digest folks, in their response, delicately pointed out that the Onion piece was satire, and has no basis in fact. I shudder to think of the legions of folks who wouldn't recognize satire if it bit them in the @$$, and who are promulgating the Onion article as the God's honest Christian truth.

[Effie]

Back when the first Harry Potter book first came out, Reader's Digest did a piece on J.K. Rowling. A couple of months later, it printed a letter to the editor from a reader clearly upset by the article. It went something like, "Why didn't you print the first letter I sent you? This book is EVIL because J.K. Rowling is a SATANIST," etc., and referenced the Onion parody as factual! The Reader's Digest folks, in their response, delicately pointed out that the Onion piece was satire, and has no basis in fact. I shudder to think of the legions of folks who wouldn't recognize satire if it bit them in the @$$, and who are promulgating the Onion article as the God's honest Christian truth.

Imagine that the person in this blog will homeschool... What will she teach her children? That parody or satire proves how evil the outside world is?

[Dev83]

http://krislee31.blogspotdotcom/2011/06 ... vorce.html

Just in case you did not see this one - I don't even have the words.

[Guest Anonymous]

Dev, if you post the links like this they are still broken but easier to access for those who use their mobile devices to peruse the snark. :)

krislee31.blogspot.com/2011/06/doctrine-or-opinion-divorce.html

[Dev83]

Dev, if you post the links like this they are still broken but easier to access for those who use their mobile devices to peruse the snark. :)

krislee31.blogspot.com/2011/06/doctrine-or-opinion-divorce.html

:D No problem, I will remember that.

[Witsec6]

Wasn't there someone we've discussed before who thought that cagefighting was like the ultimate manly activity that all good Christian men should enjoy?

Mark Driscoll.

www.wittenburgdoor.com/driscoll-kicks-own-ass

The article above is satirical, but just barely.

[Katiebug]

The baby looks reasonably healthy - a cute kid. There are differences in how babies gain depending on whether they're formula fed or breastfed, and if someone is used to seeing mostly formula fed babies then sometimes breastfed babies can look thin or skinny when in fact they're gaining just fine.

I was disgusted to read that she was sleep training the poor kid at less than 2 months old, though. Based on what she wrote, it sounds like she might be an Ezzo devotee. A baby that age should be fed on demand regardless of what s/he is being fed, but particularly a breastfed baby. Ezzo-like scheduling is not good for a breastfed baby or for the mother's milk supply. If he was breastfed and wasn't gaining right away (which I believe she did mention, that he took a while to reach his birth weight again) then it was likely due to poor breastfeeding management, including scheduling feedings. Regardless of feeding method parents should not schedule feedings with a newborn nor should they be actively trying to get a newbie to sleep through the night.

[Dev83]

The baby looks reasonably healthy - a cute kid. There are differences in how babies gain depending on whether they're formula fed or breastfed, and if someone is used to seeing mostly formula fed babies then sometimes breastfed babies can look thin or skinny when in fact they're gaining just fine.

I was disgusted to read that she was sleep training the poor kid at less than 2 months old, though. Based on what she wrote, it sounds like she might be an Ezzo devotee. A baby that age should be fed on demand regardless of what s/he is being fed, but particularly a breastfed baby. Ezzo-like scheduling is not good for a breastfed baby or for the mother's milk supply. If he was breastfed and wasn't gaining right away (which I believe she did mention, that he took a while to reach his birth weight again) then it was likely due to poor breastfeeding management, including scheduling feedings. Regardless of feeding method parents should not schedule feedings with a newborn nor should they be actively trying to get a newbie to sleep through the night.

All of the chubsters I knew were breastfed, so I am not sure that is where the difference lies, but either way I am glad that people think he is healthy.

[NurseNell]

The baby looks reasonably healthy - a cute kid. There are differences in how babies gain depending on whether they're formula fed or breastfed, and if someone is used to seeing mostly formula fed babies then sometimes

He's formula fed, or at least it appears he is. There are several photos of him with a bottle, though it could be breast milk. But no mention of breast feeding or pumping.

Do fundies tend to breast feed or bottle feed? My only frame of reference is Michelle Duggar, who nurses. It was funny to see Hannie nursing her baby doll, under a blanket. I'm OK with a nursing blanket in public or on TV but I hope the poor babies aren't always nursed that way.

I would think a lot of fundies wouldn't want to touch their own breasts or have their babies nursing but maybe I'm wrong. I hope they nurse since it's better for both baby and mom.

[Shina]

Wow, the stupid it burns.

Re: the harry potter post, she finally realized that, no the Onion is not a valid news site and unleashed this little jem.

"As I said, I apologize for the misquote mistake. Honestly, no quote by anyone is needed, except a quote from Almighty God. And His word, His scripture is clear enough on the subject of witches and wizardry. And from His own mouth we can see that Harry Potter is evil."

Facewall.

[emeraldskull]

Do fundies tend to breast feed or bottle feed? My only frame of reference is Michelle Duggar, who nurses. It was funny to see Hannie nursing her baby doll, under a blanket. I'm OK with a nursing blanket in public or on TV but I hope the poor babies aren't always nursed that way.

I would think a lot of fundies wouldn't want to touch their own breasts or have their babies nursing but maybe I'm wrong. I hope they nurse since it's better for both baby and mom.

They definitely breast feed, by and large. Firstly, there's no way they would be able to afford formula for each baby every 10 months, and they generally want to do the cheapest/most affordable thing. Plus, there's kind of a stigma there (at least, among the fundies/fundie lites I have known).

I, personally, am all for breast feeding, since breast milk has incredible health properties and as NurseNell said above, it's better for baby and mom.

[Dev83]

They definitely breast feed, by and large. Firstly, there's no way they would be able to afford formula for each baby every 10 months, and they generally want to do the cheapest/most affordable thing. Plus, there's kind of a stigma there (at least, among the fundies/fundie lites I have known).

I, personally, am all for breast feeding, since breast milk has incredible health properties and as NurseNell said above, it's better for baby and mom.

On all the blogs I read they seem pretty pro-breastfeeding - I have to think that it is because it is cheaper. I am sure they don't trust scientific studies that say it is better - that is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

[NurseNell]

On all the blogs I read they seem pretty pro-breastfeeding - I have to think that it is because it is cheaper. I am sure they don't trust scientific studies that say it is better - that is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

What about diapers? I'm not sure if paper diapers are cheaper or not, they certainly aren't good for the environment.

[emmiedahl]

A few things that stood out:

her baby sleeps twelve hours straight every night????

why is she feeding him all those solid foods at 5 months old? She is surprised that her tiny little baby didn't like the texture of oatmeal. duuuhhh.

krislee31.blogspot.com/2011/09/five-months-old.html

[emmiedahl]

She bragged in the same post that her son went out with her husband on an ATV? btw, I have skinnier babies, but this does NOT look like a healthy 3 month old:

[NurseNell]

A few things that stood out:

her baby sleeps twelve hours straight every night????

why is she feeding him all those solid foods at 5 months old? She is surprised that her tiny little baby didn't like the texture of oatmeal. duuuhhh.

krislee31.blogspot.com/2011/09/five-months-old.html

And 2 two hour naps and 1 one hour nap if I remember correctly. I don't know anyone who starts out with oatmeal, rice cereal is generally first, and usually no other foods til after 6 months.

[emmiedahl]

Maybe she just lucked out in the baby sleep draw, but that seems like way too much. 12 hours without food? omg, my youngest still wakes up to eat at least once and he is almost a year old. He is on the small side, like in the 20th percentile for BMI, but he still was plumper than that when he was 3 mos.

My doctor and I are really watching his food intake because Eamon is barely in a healthy range. A thin baby should be fed whenever they are hungry, not trained to lay in their crib with hunger pangs. grrr, I hate Ezzo. I recently somewhat alienated an in-law who was spouting that garbage.

[amie]

..........

[MonkeyMomma]

She bragged in the same post that her son went out with her husband on an ATV? btw, I have skinnier babies, but this does NOT look like a healthy 3 month old:

Ezzo in action. I cannot stand "Babywise." Perhaps not as terrifying as TTUAC, but right up there in my book.

[zeebaneighba]

I can't go 12 hours without eating. It's ridiculous to expect a baby to sleep that long!

[Austin]

My babies did sleep that long by the time they were four or five months old. Well, 11 hours a night or so. Some babies are just better sleepers than others. This must be something inherited from my husband's side of the family, b/c no one in my family ever slept like that.

They were breastfed exclusively until they were over 9 months old before I introduced any solids. They tended to be long, thin babies, but not skinny like this baby. K, I remember, had especially chubby thighs. When they were awake, I fed on demand.

[Linnea]

FWIW, my roly-poly, fully-breastfed-on-demand daughter was sleeping 10 or 12 hours a night by 5 or 6 months, without any "training". It happens occasionally. Her crib was right next to my bed, and my policy was to nurse her whenever she woke up and cried. She just quit waking up after a while. It was a rude shock when my second child didn't sleep through the night until he was 2 years old.

That said, Ezzo is evil. Babies should be fed according to their schedule, not yours.

(Cross-posted with Austin - see, I'm not the only one!)

[myanimus]

I'm not defending this wacko at all but do want to say that some babies are just not super chubby. My daughter was 6 pounds 8 oz at birth, I'd sent my mom a pic of her at 3 months and my mother promptly made phone calls to her friends who lived locally to me to come check out my daughter for her. My daughter was totally healthy, happy and normal just not a real chubby baby.

ETA: my children have always been fed on demand, carried so much that according to my mil they'd never learn to walk (but they did!) and, at least as babies and toddlers were pretty much catered to.

[emmiedahl]

I know some babies are skinnier. I hope she sees a doctor regularly for well child visits so a professional is deciding whether he is a healthy, slender baby or in need of some extra nourishment. Like I said, we are watching my son's growth carefully and he is chubbier than that.