glintofpewter

Hi Jeanie, I taught children's Sunday school and was a part time christian Director for about 20 years. I have not been involved for about 10 years so am I am not current in knowing what is available. Some of my comments are based on selections I read at Amazon. I think you just need to consider what is appropriate for a particular age. Not all stories can be child friendly. I think your choice of The Family Story Bible by Ralph Milton is a good one. The Beginner's Bible: Timeless Children's Stories is for a younger reading level. Based on the Garden of Eden story I would recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Bible-Timeless-Childrens-ebook/dp/B003I7415W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325114037&sr=8-1 The Common English Version is written for a third grade level. We gave this Bible to incoming fourth graders. Your Young Christian's First Bible-CEV-Children's Illustrated http://www.amazon.com/Young-Christians-First-Bible-CEV-Childrens-Illustrated/dp/1585160768/ref=pd_sim_b_4 I found this blog Help! I’m A Children’s Pastor http://www.helpimachildrenspastor.com/2011/10/which-bible-version-is-best-for-kids/ Welcome to the forum. Dutch

Gave me time to catch up on church work.

I am touched.

Yvonne, That was the bulletin? not the annual reports? Ouch!

Donald Rumsfeld could not have said it any better.

Christiansoul, I will keep them in my prayers Dutch

wayseeker, how fun!

Christmas has come to my house, I have feasted. Experienced "Too Hot to Handel" a Gospel Jazz arrangement of the Messiah. Here is one version of the jazz piece that comes right before the Hallelujah chorus. Not the one I experienced but this has the same energy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6eTuffwM4Q&feature=relmfu and here the last two tracks off the cd. dutch

My knee jerk reaction was because I once had to present the Rainbow Bible to middle schoolers (it was what the committee had decided on).

I don't like study Bibles. I think that commentary should be outside the texts not bound with them. I encourage you to read widely.

We do "cite" the Bible don't we but perhaps the 6th commandment does not so much forbid killing but as ask us to consider what does "kill" ,or taking another's life, mean, today, you and me. The men who had so many committee meetings they lost a civil war understood "Thou shalt not kill" as a discussion starter. Here is what the Larger Catechism says http://www.reformed....-150.html#fn648 I apologize for leaving the Scripture citations numbers in the cut and paste. Dutch

It may be that the 6th commandment is in conversation with the accounts of massacres, etc. and not part of a unified message. There is more than one view in the Hebrew Bible. Dutch

Douglas Johnston on Faith-Based Diplomacy http://fora.tv/2007/...Based_Diplomacy In this talk two of the tools used are 1. Helping believers (in any religion) find the best teachings in their religion. 2 Helping believers recognize globally accepted values of human rights and then finding support for that in their Sacred texts. It is an interesting dynamic because the best of religions has been part of the evolution of those globally accepted human rights and values and then those accepted values inform the reading of Scripture. "Universal set of values" is OK with me as long as we understand that they do not exist separately from us; that we are continually maintaining them and changing them and that we rely so much on prophetic voices to bring us back to the highest value if we forget. Dutch

a not uncommon view well expressed: The Bible as authority - but when we read it our understanding is less than absolute. Morality Is Absolute -- and Evolving Rabbi Eric h Yoffie http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-eric-h-yoffie/morality-is-absoluteand-e_b_942477.html

A different way saying what others have been saying here.

Jenyll Yup. Generally I think this is true but I did observe a friend who had not thought out her own ideas about gays be influenced by a church her husband worked in. It was through other conversations about real life experiences that moved her back toward being more accepting of gays. But in general yes. Dutch

Religious pluralism makes no value judgments about all actually being equally valid. Denial of the ability to evaluate religions is a postmodern stance. That is the weakness of the postmodern. What religious pluralism does ask is relationship and dialog. In that relationship both subjects grow in their understanding of their own religious beliefs and their understanding of the other. And if one religion requires or motivates something of or in its adherents that is reprehensible according to popular consensus then in that dialog, which also takes place in the public square there will be changes. Dutch

Happy thanksgiving all.

Because many of us must be forced in to be tolerant by mandates. The company cannot change people's tribalism. I maybe too harsh. But the ecumenical movement failed because it looked for commonalities and that temptation to stress sameness, as you observe, Bill. It is easier legislate or to gloss over the differences, partly because we don't want to get to know ourselves and the other that deeply.

Not hard and fast - on the Moral Foundations site a comment about Fairness/Cheating and they are thinking about adding another one or two more

I like Nick's distinction between relativism and pluralism. For me the core question here is "Do I have a faith and belief system that I can hold onto?" One of the stages in inter-religious dialog is to become grounded in one's own belief. This is not relativism. It is being a centered individual inter-related with everyone else - in a pluralistic world. Just because it is not hard and fast does not mean that it is relative. Haidt, through surveys in many cultures has identified five moral foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion Sanctity/Degradation By the way, he says liberals only value 1 & 2 in political conversations. Perhaps that is an issue here, also. We like to say morals are universal, instinctual, part of the evolution of a pro-social animal. Infants and toddlers recognize help/hindrance, fairness, and believe in retributive justice. The problem is that these moral tendencies are circumscribed by self-centered and tribal-centered perspectives. I think, then, that the toddler who insists in fair distribution of goods among animate objects can be influenced into perceiving that some group of animate objects don't count any more. This is the true relativity. Only my relations count. Take Care Dutch

"I don't know Who- or what- put the question, I don't know when it was put. I don't even remember answering. But at some moment I did answer Yes to Someone- or something". - Dag Hammarskjold

Wisdom is so kind and wise that wherever you may look you can learn something about God. Why would not the omnipresent teach that way? by Catherine of Siena, quoted in (worth reading) Sacred Sundays: The Full Side of Awakening Written by Saskia Tait from Daniel Ladinsky’s edited work, Love Poems from God. http://beamsandstrut...de-of-awakening

May they and you have peace about these difficult changes. Take Care Dutch

Gentle Arms of Eden by Dave Carter and Tracy Grammar more of a kids song about evolution and ecology. Kids left singing the chorus after one time through. This is my home This is my only home This is the only sacred ground that I have ever known And should I stray In the dark night alone Rock me Goddess in the gentle arms of Eden