Carlene

I will save you the trouble. This is, after all, your thread. So I will leave it to you.

My personal choice would be Hillary, but I don't think she is electable. Same for Obama. Hillary is smart, experienced, level-headed, and very middle-of-the-road. (Remember that she was once a Republican.) Hillary Clinton is the most conservative Democrat on the horizon, and I am basically a conservative Democrat. She doesn't come from old money or big business, so I think she's got fewer debts to pay back, if you know what I mean. :biggrin1: Edwards is a no-go. The Democratic party couldn't sell him the last time around and I don't think they can sell him this time. McCain just doesn't seem to believe strongly in anything. He's a nice guy and all, but just doesn't light my fire. So I'm officially on the fence right now.

Gee....you should meet Mr. Ron Cusano. You have a lot in common.

Nowhere do any of these "references" implicate the Pope in trying to "run" the country. Yes, individual bishops have spoken for/against political agendas regarding abortion and stem cell research, but that does NOT mean that they have been "ordered" by the Pope to do so, nor does it mean that they, in turn, have pressured parish priests across America to tell their parrishoners who to vote for. Unless you have been in a Catholic church and heard that with your own ears, then you don't know any such thing to be "true". I, on the other hand, have been in numerous Catholic churches and have NEVER heard a priest campaign for any individual or political party.

I thought you were opposed to bashing other people's beliefs? My mistake.

Inside the Vatican is published by lay people, not the Pope, and it does not speak for the Church.

Sunta...some people DO understand. I had a friend (now deceased) whose daughter married her high school sweetheart. Everyone thought they were "made for each other". They had a child. Their lives were wonderful - except that he was gay, and always had been. He finally could not live the lie any longer, nor was he willing to sneak around and cheat. They are divorced now, but remain friends. It's a tragedy for all concerned.

Bubble Butt....I promise not to accuse atheists of eating their young, if you will cease denigrating the Catholic Church. Do we have a deal?

I think the controversy you are referring to involved the threat of excommunication made toward legislators who voted against pro-life legislation. And that was two (I believe) very over-zealous priests (one may actually have been a bishop), who quickly back-pedaled and faded into the woodwork. The Catholic Church does not tell its membership how to vote. That might work somewhere else, but not in the USA.

Would you mind providing some reference for this? I have been voting in local, state and national elections for a long time and my church has NEVER attempted to influence my vote.

Absolutely.

I am a member of OH but don't post there much, or even lurk - not since a certain clown, whose posts make me absolutely WANT to puke, started hanging out there. The same reason I left a Yahoo group she was on - just made my teeth ACHE. Maybe that's just me, though. I may respond to that thread, however. I don't remember seeing any posters on LBT that said they suffered from Bulimia, post-band, or any who vomit voluntarily. I PB sometimes, and most of the time, it's my own damn fault. I eat too much, or I eat something I know will not suit my band. Other times, who knows what the deal is? The other day, I PBed ice cream.

The salad bar Catholics serve real wine and the Protestants serve grape juice. But the Protestant salad bars offer real bread (some of them, at least), while at the Catholics' you only get a wafer that looks/tastes like fish food. Also, the Catholics can't eat anything else for at least an hour before they approach the salad bar, but the Protestants can. There is a woman at my church who brings little slips of paper to Mass with her, pre-printed with an admonition not to chew gum prior to Communion, so as to be sure not to break the required fast. She taps people on the shoulder and shoves these little missives at them whenever she observes a gum-chewing transgressor. I call her the chewing gum police. My DH calls her something else.

We're all nuts, but welcome to our tree, QT. I am a Catholic by denomination, and I agree that Jesus does not define us by labels. I respect your beliefs, although I don't claim to be familiar with all of them. I think that if you are faithful to your beliefs you will be a stronger Christian for it. I once had a wonderful priest who told people who were considering conversion, "Do not consider this unless you are certain God has spoken to you and it's what YOU truly want. Don't convert for your spouse, your children, or your in-laws. If you do that, you'll never be a good Catholic, and it's far, far better to be a good something else than a lukewarm Catholic."

Too bad, or I'd go stand in a Playboy centerfold.

I read it in the newspaper. I was having hard chills with my temp and when they told me they were going to pack me in ice, I said, "No way. I would rather just go ahead and die." Of course, they paid no attention to me.

The bodyguard is an EMT.

Still waiting for an answer to my questions.... Originally Posted by Ron Cusano In the example you sited here, the Pastor was 100% correct. Within the church, a women is not to exert authority over the man. Just as Christ is the head of the Church, a man is the head of the household and is responsible for teaching, among other things. So....you're saying that for the more than 50 years this woman taught, her church elders, various pastors, etc were ALL in error? And for all that time, they were misinterpreting the scriptures, yes? How is that possible, since the dogma of the church did NOT change during that time. And still remains unchanged in most Baptist churches across America. How do you KNOW this one scripture should be taken "literally", but many others (like the one that says women must cover their heads to pray) need NOT be? How, exactly, is that distinction "clear" to you?

I think he means as opposed to Fundamentalists. I have a friend who belongs to a very, very conservative Southern Baptist congregation. Nonetheless, a group of her fellow church members broke away and started their own "non-denominational" church because they thought the Baptists were too liberal. Everything is relative to something else.

Did you know that coffee is lethal to slugs? And the grounds are good for your plants, too.

NO, NO, NO, TOM.....it's not the brand of salt, it's HOW you sprinkle it. I have used both generic and name brand salt for years on my lawn and have had absolutely no problem with either elephants or alligators. But I am careful to ALWAYS sprinkle it by the light of a full moon, wearing a pink tutu.

A command that my church takes "literally", so I guess you see "clear indication" that it should not be....never mind that the Catholic Church is about 2000 years older than you, with a staggering accumulation of history and knowledge at its disposal. Anglicans also believe in the transubstantiation, as does the Orthodox church.

If you have a temp like that, you aren't going to get better without some serious anti-biotic treatment - usually via IV. A nurse would HAVE to know that. I once spiked a temp of 105 1/2 and was going into convulsions. Fortunately, my DH came home and found me, and took me to the ER. I was sooooooo out of it. They packed me in ice (actually, it's a blanket that ice water circulates thru) and made me stay in the hospital for 3 days.

I saw the same Larry King interview. What puzzles me is that she had an EMT (her bodyguard) AND an RN with her round the clock. The nurse was trying to cool her down because she spiked a temp of 105 degrees. What medical professional does NOT take measures to get emergency treatment for a temp of 105 in an adult? She should have called 911, regardless of what Anna or Howard wanted. It was a matter of professional responsibility, if you ask me.

So....you're saying that for the more than 50 years this woman taught, her church elders, various pastors, etc were ALL in error? And for all that time, they were misinterpreting the scriptures, yes? How is that possible, since the dogma of the church did NOT change during that time. And still remains unchanged in most Baptist churches across America. How do you KNOW this one scripture should be taken "literally", but many others (like the one that says women must cover their heads to pray) need NOT be? How, exactly, is that distinction "clear" to you?