Carlene

Actually, there is more agreement than arguing. The majority of us think Bush is the worst US president in history. Some think he is the anti-Christ. A few think he is bad, but not the absolute WORST, and one or two misguided individuals, God bless 'em, agree with George that he is one hell of a great guy....and humble, too.

We sure can, Roberta. I tell my grandkids that they have the hottest lookin' Nanny in town!

Thanks. My English Comp instructors would be proud to learn that my education wasn't entirely wasted.

He is, Mandy, but Osama doesn't live like a rich and powerful man. He is content to live in a cave in Afghanistan. Do you know how inhospitable Afghanistan is? No self-respecting playboy would spend 10 mintes in that God-forsaken place. But Osama bin Laden is not motivated by wealth, or women, or comfort. He doesn't care about clothes, expensive cars, mansions, or fine food. He is, by all accounts, a shy man - very polite and unassuming. And very religious. He is a religious fanatic, in fact. He wants the Infidels (us) to leave Saudi Arabia and never set foot on its sacred soil again. In addition... Muslims blame the USA for poverty and oppression in the Middle East. - The USA provides military support to several oppressive governments in the Middle East. The majority of people in those countries, Muslims, live in abject poverty, with no hope for the future. - The people in those Middle Eastern countries are not allowed to protest against their own governments and cannot overthrow their governments, partly because of American military support for those governments. (However, the people are allowed to demonstrate publicly against the USA to vent their anger and frustration.) - The USA abandoned the Muslim people of Iraq and Afghanistan after the USA achieved its military goals. After the USA left Iraq, oppressed people in Iraq who opposed Saddham Hussein were massacred. After the USA left Afghanistan, the people of that country were left in abject poverty, had no effective leaders, and had no hope for the future. - The USA provides military support to Israel, one of the world's strongest military powers, and the Israelis use that American military power against the Palestinian Muslims, who are forbidden to build an army or have a military force. (Israel was created by the United Nations to make a homeland for Jews. The land, however, was already inhabited by Palestinian Muslims. Many Muslims, therefore, regard Palestinian territory as being occupied by oppressors, the Israelis.) Muslims blame the USA for a loss of traditional values in the Middle East. - For Fundamentalist Muslims, the USA is a symbol of moral decay. They see the USA as responsible for a decline in traditional values and lifestyles. Fundamentalist Muslims see the American lifestyle as a dangerous competitor for the hearts and minds of Muslims. - Fundamentalist Muslims view the technologically advanced and secular lifestyle in the United States as a dangerous temptation for Muslims and that it will lead them away from Fundamentalist Muslim values. Fundamentalist Muslims believe that they are dominated by the West, especially the United States. "Of all these offenses the one that is most widely, frequently, and vehemently denounced is undoubtedly imperialism ...." "What is truly evil and unacceptable [to the Fundamentalist Muslim] is the domination of infidels over true believers."

Dear Transformer: While I know that on some level, weight discrimination does exist, I hope you (and others) will always resist the temptation to blame every rejection on obesity. It's just too easy. And it's anti-productive. Black people do the same thing....they won't hire me 'cause I'm BLACK. And women...they won't give that job to a WOMAN. Nonsense. Most of the time, the people in HR are just interested in filling the position with a qualified person that they feel will be a long-term asset to the company. It does, after all, cost money to train people. If your resume looks like you might be a "job-hopper", it makes you less appealing as a prospective employee. Lots of other, subtle things are considered, too - especially when there is a whole smörgåsbord of good candidates to choose from. I was on a selection committee once that rejected an applicant because she was chewing gum during the interview! Because there are so many things employers CAN'T ask job seekers now, they have to fly by the seat of their pants when they fill a position. You can't ask a person about age, religion, marital status, etc. You can't inquire about whether or not they have reliable, alternative child care lined up for when (not if, but when) their six year old is too sick to attend school or day care. So I've seen women with children rejected in favor of childless ones. At my last job, I was known as "Murphy Brown" because I couldn't keep an assistant. It wasn't me....it was the other people they had to work with, by the way. But I got to where I wouldn't hire anyone who appeared to be "thin-skinned". Nor would I take on someone who struck me as too aggressive, or a prima dona. It was an incredible disruption every time I had to look for/hire a new person, so I tried like hell to pick one that would stay more than a month or two...without asking any questions that would violate her privacy (God forbid). I think a lot of the laws that are meant to prevent discrimination actually make it worse, in many cases. As the person doing the hiring, your hands are tied so badly that you might as well consult a crystal ball. So a lot of good people get passed over. Not necessarily because they are fat, or black, or over 50 but because of stupid stuff, like body language (is that a nervous tic?), personal lives that cannot be delved into (recently separated from her husband and new to the area....nope, too much chance of a reconciliation) or, yes, some kind of discrimination (she's young and pretty and I'm thinking that means a lot of personal calls). I'll bet you never considered that being too attractive might cost you a job, but it certainly can!

I think it takes both - faith AND good works. I don't think just believing in God is enough to get you to heaven. You have to FOLLOW Christ - to live a Christ-like life - and that requires good works. Salvation - the forgiveness of sins - is what Jesus earned for us when he died on the cross.

God loves us all; that isn't the point. I believe we are redeemed by faith, but I also believe that to truly please God, we must do good works. And if we love Him, we will feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in jail, etc for Christ said whosoever does these for the least of mine, does them for me.

People are WONDERFUL! A woman I saw regularly at church but did not know grabbed me one day and said, "I have been meaning to tell you how great you look." It's a real ego trip. I said I was cold at a party and another guest (a stranger) said, "That's because you're skinny." (She didn't know she was being wonderful, but she was.) This year's Christmas cards were photo cards. I got LOTS of comments from people on my Christmas card list who had not seen me in a while. One wrote back when she sent her card and said, "You look so much younger." I have not had one single negative comment, and I tell almost everyone that I had LB surgery.

That's not divine interpretation; that's one man's point of view. Hank Hanegraaff is an author and radio talk show host who advocates evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all other denominations. He preaches that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, among others, are non-Christians practicing cultist religions. In keeping with the subject of this thread, he has nine children. It is historical FACT that the Protestant Reformation in part began as a protest against the sale of Indulgences, and by extension the Protestants, in rejecting the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, were inclined to abandon all prayers for the dead and it was Martin Luther, not "divine intervention", who was responsible for removing the 7 books in question. In the Communion Service of 1549, after praise and thanks were offered for all the saints, chiefly the Blessed Virgin, came the following: We commend into thy mercy all other thy servants, which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith and now do rest in the sleep of peace: grant unto them, we beseech thee, thy mercy and everlasting peace. In 1552, under the influence of Bucer, all mention of the dead, whether commemorative or intercessory, was cut out of the Eucharist; the prayers in the Burial Service were brought into their present form; and the provision for Holy Communion at a Burial was omitted. The thankful commemoration of the dead in the Eucharist was restored in 1661, but prayers for them remained, if they remained at all, veiled in ambiguous phrases. The Church of England (Episcopal Church in the USA), by the way, has never forbidden prayers for the dead, and these intercessions have been used in private by a long list of English divines, among whom Andrewes, Cosin, Thomas Ken, Charles Wesley, and John Keble form an almost complete chain down to the present day. On the tomb of Bishop Barrow (1680) stands a request to passers-by to pray for their fellow-servant. Within Judaism, prayers for the dead form part of the Jewish services. The English form contains the following passage: Have mercy upon him; pardon all his transgressions . . . Shelter his soul in the shadow of Thy wings. Make known to him the path of life. As for the argument regarding good works and salvation, I give you the Apostle James... What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Edited to add... I have no quarrel with anyone's belief system and it is not my intention herein to argue theology. I am simply attempting to point out that a person CAN have faith without resorting to some high-handed, know-it-all attitude that their version of Christianity is the "true" one, that their Bible is the "pure" text, or that recorded history is just plain wrong. When people go on the offensive and suggest that fundamentalist Christians are "anti-intellectual", "blind", etc it is often because they have good reason to do so. Neither my church nor yours (meaning everyone who reads this) is free of inaccuracy, scandal, or the stain of worldly sin. Get over the idea that you can't be a good Christian unless you insist otherwise, because you certainly CAN. Just stop arguing with history and making idiotic statements like "the Bible approved by God" and people will take you a whole lot more seriously. They will respect your devotion and your faith. They will seek you out for serious give-and-take discussions that do not degenerate into ugliness. But you must do your part. Stop being a poster child for radical, no-brain, my-way-or-the-highway religion.

The King James Bible is the classic Protestant Bible, which was first printed in 1611 under the authority of King James I of England, the official head of the Church of England. The King James Bible follows the canon (or contents) established by Martin Luther in 1534 when he translated the Bible into German. He grouped what Catholics call "the seven deuterocanonical books" (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title "Apocrypha" declaring, "These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." (Luther on his own initiative tampered with the canon of Sacred Scripture.) For some time, these books were printed between the Old and the New Testaments under the title "Apocrypha" but by the early 1800s they were dropped all together from the King James Version of the Bible. At present, some versions of the King James Bible will state, "with apocrypha" indicating that these seven books are included somewhere in the contents. So....it's your opinion that a Catholic priest (Martin Luther) was acting under "divine authority" when he threw out those 7 books?

I agree. I think hugely important (unpopular) political deals have been made under the radar with regard to Osama bin Laden.

I think this constitutes "tinkering"... The "original" Bible contained 80 books. Today's Catholic Bible contains 73 books, and the KJV contains only 66.

I think there was definitely some tinkering going on here... 1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses. 500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 books of the Old Testament. 200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books. 1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament. 315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture. 382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test). 500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages. 600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture. 995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced. 1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books. 1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin. 1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament. 1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament. 1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language. 1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha). 1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books). 1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books). 1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books). 1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books). 1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books). 1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books. 1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America. 1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books. 1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman. 1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible. 1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns. 1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books. 1885 AD: The "English Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV. 1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the KJV. 1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible. 1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible. 1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."

My son was in Dhabi on his way to Iraq (twice). The first time, they kept him there - in a nice hotel - for almost 2 weeks because things were so unstable in Baghdad. He LOVED it!

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Sweetie...I think you are just as cute and sweet as can be, but I have to point out that Afghanistan bred way more terrorists than Iraq ever did. So did Saudi Arabia.

You're joking, right? How many "versions" of the Bible do you suppose there are, just in print today? The "New English Version", the "King James Version", the "American Bible", etc. ALL of these were "tinkered with", hon. I have seen/read (sort of) a Bible printed in the 1500's. Truth to tell, the language, though English, might just as well have been Greek. If no one had "tinkered with" the Bible in the intervening 500 years, neither of us would be able to read it!

I actually considered the MGB but at the time, no insurance comapny would cover it. Has that changed, or were you self-pay? The other reason I opted out was that there was no surgeon in the Dallas/Ft Worth area who was doing the MGB. I'm just not thrilled with the idea of being hundreds of miles away from my surgeon.

Dick Cheney's motto....Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

Thanks for all the lovely birthday wishes. My DH's BD was yesterday. He was 63, but of course I'm much younger....a veritable child bride.

There is an old saying....women mourn, men remarry. I don't know what to expect when Mrs P dies. Will he play the grieving husband at her funeral? Will he bring his girlfriend, possibly seating her with the family?

I loved his address to Congress - a Democratic Congress - when he first took office. He said, "I don't want a honeymoon with you; I want a good marriage."

I saw the movie when it first came out, but I don't recall the abortion perspective being unique. Can you enlighten us, please?

Oh, but he WILL. That's why you have to be strong.

I have a total of 176 PM's. I think 100 of them were from people wanting to know what happened to Mrs. P. She is still in the very nice care facility, although Mr P will have to pay $4200 per month to keep her there, after the first 90 days. We'll see what happens on that score. She may not live long enough for it to matter. She has lost 30 pounds since she was "admitted". Mr P has advised the staff that she is DNR and told her doctor he may not feed her via feeding tube or place a breathing tube, in which case, the doctor said, she will "fade very quickly". Mr P moved the former caregiver into his and Mrs P's house the same week he moved his wife out. She (the caregiver) visited Mrs P several times but Mr P has only gone once. A night nurse called him and gave him a royal rip, up one side and down the other, for not coming to see her. Most of the staff did not even realize she was married. According to Mr P, she recognized him and called him by name but is confused as to whose husband he is - hers or the caregiver's. I asked my DH to suggest to Mr P that he have a priest visit and give Mrs P the anointing of the sick (last rites). He said that was "a good idea", but I don't think he's done it yet. My DH finally told Mr P that "Carlene is not very accepting of your relationship" with L. What a tactful guy! Actually, he didn't have much choice. Mr P had mentioned, "I hope WE get to see you guys before Christmas," (emphasis mine) and I told DH just let me know when they are coming and I will arrange to be conveniently "tied up" somewhere else. Mr P's response was, "Well...I'm sorry to hear that." I told DH that this whole thing makes me sad, but more than that, it makes me feel terribly vulnerable. Mr P was the absolute best husband I ever knew. If he is capable of this, then it could happen to any of us. My friend Alan is right....men are pigs. (Present company excluded, of course.) I'm just thankful that Mrs P's state of mental confusion/drug-induced bliss prevents her from knowing what a creep the love of her life has turned out to be.