Today is the day we all hit the ground running, so to speak, in 2011. Dan had yesterday off for New Year's, so we hadn't used the alarm clock until this morning. Despite Adele and I having bad colds, it feels like a fresh start, a clean slate, the proverbial new day. Fresh snow is pouring down (did you know the biggest snowflakes fall when it's 15 degrees?) while I've purged the house of all things Christmas.
Starting today, I'm tackling one room a day instead of my usual cleaning schedule. Got the idea from this book, which I highly recommend despite the fact that I don't buy into all of her ideas, such as homemade deodorant and cloth diapers....
I'm doing a deep clean of each room and getting rid of anything that I can. I love it. Such a great feeling. Despite the fact that it smells like vinegar from my glass cleaner, the living room is now much more inviting and wonderful. We reserved some money for a new chair for the living room which went on sale today - yahtzee! I am looking forward to pulling it all together and then hanging some artwork I've been waiting on.
I kicked off the year with a new schedule for reading through the Bible in a year chronologically, which I think is going to be really interesting. I read Genesis through the flood and am now starting Job, who came after the flood but before the patriarchs. A couple of things have brought on some good discussions with Dan. For instance, the whole authority structure for the home (men as the head, wives submitting to them, and kids submitting to both) is also assumed to be the way God created the first family, but I'm not convinced. I think perhaps it didn't come about until after the Fall. Why would they have needed it before that anyway? Dan's argument is that everything God did/does stays exactly in line with His character, so even before the Fall the first family structure would have been mimicking the Trinity. Hmm. Also, I have not yet decided what I think Genesis 6:1-4 means. In fact, I have absolutely no idea. Some people think angels came to earth to marry human women, some think it's only fallen angels, some think neither. Thoughts?
Switching back from theology to domesticity: dinner is ready to go for tonight. With all the snow and wind, we need some spice to keep warm, so we're having enchiladas with a side salad. Anybody love homemade 'ladas but need a recipe? Here you go!
Starting today, I'm tackling one room a day instead of my usual cleaning schedule. Got the idea from this book, which I highly recommend despite the fact that I don't buy into all of her ideas, such as homemade deodorant and cloth diapers....
I'm doing a deep clean of each room and getting rid of anything that I can. I love it. Such a great feeling. Despite the fact that it smells like vinegar from my glass cleaner, the living room is now much more inviting and wonderful. We reserved some money for a new chair for the living room which went on sale today - yahtzee! I am looking forward to pulling it all together and then hanging some artwork I've been waiting on.I kicked off the year with a new schedule for reading through the Bible in a year chronologically, which I think is going to be really interesting. I read Genesis through the flood and am now starting Job, who came after the flood but before the patriarchs. A couple of things have brought on some good discussions with Dan. For instance, the whole authority structure for the home (men as the head, wives submitting to them, and kids submitting to both) is also assumed to be the way God created the first family, but I'm not convinced. I think perhaps it didn't come about until after the Fall. Why would they have needed it before that anyway? Dan's argument is that everything God did/does stays exactly in line with His character, so even before the Fall the first family structure would have been mimicking the Trinity. Hmm. Also, I have not yet decided what I think Genesis 6:1-4 means. In fact, I have absolutely no idea. Some people think angels came to earth to marry human women, some think it's only fallen angels, some think neither. Thoughts?
Switching back from theology to domesticity: dinner is ready to go for tonight. With all the snow and wind, we need some spice to keep warm, so we're having enchiladas with a side salad. Anybody love homemade 'ladas but need a recipe? Here you go!
Mom's Enchiladas
2-3 Tbsp. canola oil
2 Tbsp. flour
1/4 cup chili powder (less if you like it milder, or add in some cayenne if you like it hotter)
1/4 tsp. each of cumin, garlic powder, and onion powder
8 oz. tomato sauce
1 cup water
1/2 of an onion
1 lb. ground beef
6-8 flour tortillas
2-3 cups shredded cheese
Heat oil in a saucepan; add flour and chili powder, stirring constantly until well mixed. Add in seasonings, tomato sauce, and water. Stir until well-blended. Keep over low heat as it thickens (5 minutes). Remove from heat. Put 1/4 cup or so of sauce in the bottom of an 8x8 or 7x11 pan.
Meanwhile, brown meat and onion. Drain.
Taking tortillas one by one, put in each some meat/onion mixture and a hefty drizzle of sauce and then roll up. Lay seam-side-down in pan. Repeat until all the meat is used up. Pour remaining sauce over the top of all. Top with shredded cheese. Bake at 350 for 30 minutes.
2-3 Tbsp. canola oil
2 Tbsp. flour
1/4 cup chili powder (less if you like it milder, or add in some cayenne if you like it hotter)
1/4 tsp. each of cumin, garlic powder, and onion powder
8 oz. tomato sauce
1 cup water
1/2 of an onion
1 lb. ground beef
6-8 flour tortillas
2-3 cups shredded cheese
Heat oil in a saucepan; add flour and chili powder, stirring constantly until well mixed. Add in seasonings, tomato sauce, and water. Stir until well-blended. Keep over low heat as it thickens (5 minutes). Remove from heat. Put 1/4 cup or so of sauce in the bottom of an 8x8 or 7x11 pan.
Meanwhile, brown meat and onion. Drain.
Taking tortillas one by one, put in each some meat/onion mixture and a hefty drizzle of sauce and then roll up. Lay seam-side-down in pan. Repeat until all the meat is used up. Pour remaining sauce over the top of all. Top with shredded cheese. Bake at 350 for 30 minutes.
6 comments:
I can hear your energy in this post! Happy New Year to you and your family. I often think of the quote you had last New Year about each year having a new language. It's a favorite of mine now. This fresh snow is really making things feel like a clean slate.
That passage in Genesis has always been quite interesting to me. I think it's obvious that the world was drastically different prior to the Flood. I think the Nephilim were a breed of now extinct giants. My Bible gave a cross reference to Numbers 13:33, in which the Israelites were afraid to enter the land because of how huge all of the people were and actually calls them Nephilim in that text.
But angels (fallen or not fallen) having sex drives? Wanting to have children with human women? For the simple reason that the daughters of men were beautiful? Whaaaaat? In all of the religious artistic renderings of angels they are pretty asexual. It's possible for an angel to have the hots for a woman? And the passage doesn't describe what the children of such unions were like. Some have surmised that they were the Nephilim, but verse 4 refers to the Nephilim as if, 'hey by the way, there were Nephilim on the earth then, and they were there later too'. The children could not have been immortal, otherwise the Flood wouldn't have been successful in ridding the earth of all other life.
And to top that off, God doesn't appear to get mad at the 'sons of God' for having children with human women. Instead He says, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal..." Why wasn't He like, "Hey you, sons of God (angels or whatever they were), leave those chicks alone!"?
Interestingly, the Nephilim seem to have existed after the Flood as evidenced by the reference in Numbers. So, Noah, his three sons or their wives must have had the Nephilim gene if that genetic phenotype was to persist after the Flood. Which would have made it a recessive gene, perhaps. And maybe that's why there are no more Nephilim today?
Interesting. Very, very interesting...
Good luck with the cleaning! I am planning on doing this same techniqe down here. But I require Hubby's assistance since he has such a passion for KEEPING CRAP WE DON'T NEED. Myself? I love a good purge...
Cayla, look up Matthew 22:30 - Jesus says angels are not the marrying type. It's almost like the "sons of God"(whoever they were) gave up any sort of heavenly attribute they had when they married? Which would explain why their kids would be nothing special. But still, the contrast between "sons of God" and "daughters of humans" is fascinating.
Good point, Kate.
I wonder though, still. If the sons of God WERE angels that gave up all heavenly attributes then that means that they have the capability, which is still weird.
I wonder if they were a totally separate human race that God wiped off the face of the earth with the Flood...
Not that this idea has any remote basis in Scripture. But when God gets annoyed, he seems to be annoyed with humankind. You'd think that if there were any connection to Heaven that He'd be separately annoyed with the sons of God. But it appears they are lumped together in His annoyance.
Anyway, interesting to say the least...
Ok, so one of my seminary friends postulated that sons of God means human male. Because God created man. And that human women were daughters of man--woman was taken from the rib of man. So, it may just point to increasing sexual immorality on the earth...
And on that note, I will stop filling up your blog! ;-) I have always found that passage interesting though...
Your posts are like comfort in a cup. I'm going to look into that book, re-read that part in Genesis (and use Marty's new Bible dictionary to perhaps look it up?), and de-Christmas my own house, then I'll get back to you on these things, ha!
Post a Comment