JimR-OCDS

The study reported processed meats, but it's actually been around for awhile. It get's republished every January, via animal rights groups, because people are usually jumping onto meat eating low-carb diets this time of year. The problem with the processed meats are the nitrates and other bi-products that are added. It doesn't mean eating meat is bad for you.

So easy to call out others isn't it? It's people like you that make me want to leave the church and never look back. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nah, you're merely looking for an excuse to leave the church, don't use me as your scapegoat.

The Episcopal Church isn't part of the Catholic Church. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, but how many incidents of homosexual priests would you like me to exhibit for you? Well, at least the ones that admit to it anyway. How about the pedophiles? The church is in full denial on that one, even with all the lawsuits they've encountered. They still refuse to clean up their mess. Yet, their "celibate" homosexual priests are more qualified then a heterosexual divorced man who is forever branded an outcast by the church. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Catholic Church has never approved of homosexual acts or pedophilia. The fact that it happened is wrong, and is being handled in an agressive manor. Also, for the most part, the Catholic Church handled cases of sexual abuse of minors, the same way that other institutions, both secular and religious handled them. Twenty plus years ago, rape and molestation cases were always kept quiet, for the sake of the victim. The Catholic Church in the United States, only makes up 1/16 of the Catholic Church. So, you're painting with a broad brush here. Based on what you've been posting, my guess is there are other reasons than your divorce, as to why various churches have rejected your quest to become a minister.

The Episcopal Church isn't part of the Catholic Church.

For those who believe that God doesn't want us to eat meat, try telling that to Eskimos. Also, why did God make animals that eat each other?

Go here for solid information on the myths of vegetarianism. http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/m...etarianism.html

First off, in counseling people who are about to get married, it doesn't require the counselor be married, because the counseling involves the couple talking and asking questions of each other. That being said, priest had parents, they know more about marriage than you suppose. Also, today it is mostly married couple's who help prepare couples for marriage. All the parishes I know of, have couple to couple ministries, where married couples meet with those couples seeking to get married. False bogus statement. I think I see an agenda here, which is driven by bitterness and anger. You need to deal with this before you are able have a rational discussion on this matter.

Barracuda, thanks for sharing your story. Your first marriage, was not a marriage, in the sacramental sense. Your marriage was driven by the pregnancy, not a free choice to join in a sacramental union, which a true marriage is. Your second marriage is a different story. You both went before God, and professed your vows to each other. This is where God joins two, to be as one. Can you become a preacher ? I don't see why not! God bless Jim

"It's the Church that gave you the Bible you have. The pillar of faith is the Church, not the Bible." "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of faith." 1 Timothy, 3:15 Paul's letter is talking about conduct within the ecclesiastical Church, not conduct within a Church building. Church building's didn't exist then. The fact is, the Church came before the Bible, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are to refer only to the Bible. In fact, Jesus gave authority to the Church, on matters of doctrine and teaching, through the apostles. No mention of the Bible having authority over the Apostles.

Huh? We can say something never happened all we want, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Sounds like heavy rationalization, but that is JMO. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, define what a marriage is, theologically.

Right, what God has joined together. Those who get married without knowledge and free will, is that what God joined together? People who marry, sacarmentally, confir the sacrament on each other. They make vows, to each other. However, if those vows are taken under false pretence, they are invalid. It's the Church that gave you the Bible you have. The pillar of faith is the Church, not the Bible. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of faith." 1 Timothy, 3:15 Lot's of things aren't in the Bible, but are part of the teaching of the Church. Annulment doesn't contradict the Bible, concerning marriage, but confirms it. Annulment means that a sacramental marriage never took place.

wow, whether you call it a divorce or an annullment, what is the difference A marriage is a commitment to each other, which is given freely. An annulment says, marriage never happened. And just because one got married because of a pregancy is not really grounds for a divorce or annulment If a person got married as the result of an unwanted pregnancy, and was only getting married for that reason, then a marriage,(in the sacramental sense, not the civil) did not take place.

The Catholic Church does not allow divorce. However, they do allow for annulment. The theology is that an annulment means that the marriage did not exist. If there was no marriage, then there is no need for divorce. According to the Church teaching, a marriage only exist when a man and woman, are united to each other, freely and in full knowledge and consent. The annulment process looks at whether these two conditions were in place at the time the marriage took place. Was the marriage the result of a unwanted pregnancy? If so, then perhaps the two did not marry freely. Did one of the people have a secret that was unknown to the person, say for instance, the person was gay, or the person knowingly, was unable to have children, but never revealed that information. This would've prevented the other person from having full knowledge and of the commitment that he/she was going into. Also, alcoholism and drug addiction can be a factor, where a person was not able to make a commitment with full knowledge and consent. According to a deacon that I'm a good friend with, the theology on annulment has changed a little. Before, where an annulment said that the marriage never existed, today it say's that although it may have marriage existed in the beginning, for some reason, it has ceased to exist. I'm not sure if this new theology is nothing more than a watering down of the original, by liberal Bishop's or not? From what I've read lately, Rome still holds that an annulment means that the marriage never existed and has been critical of US and Canada Bishop's, allowing annulments very loosely. As a result, the preparation for marriage in the Catholic Church is more intense than ever before. My son is getting married next October. He and his fiance, must go through a discernment process which includes a week-end for engaged couples. This week-end get's the couple to ask questions of each other that they probably never ask, and to learn exactly what they are committing themselves to. It takes about a year, before you can get married in the Catholic church these days. I think it's the right step.

Actually it was. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) the second most important New Deal reform after the Social Security Act of 1935. It's passage was a result of the post depression period, where two workers were required to support their families. (Gee, much like today.) In order to have an economy where mother's could return home to care for their families, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or also known as the Living Wage Act, was passed.

I took it and came out 100% Quaker. However, the questions are flawed with respect to belief's of other religious traditions, i.e. Catholicism. This is why I came out only 75% Catholic.

More on Israeli attrocities. To be sure, Ehud Barak did disapprove of Operation Defensive Shield. Sharon, he scolded, should have acted "more forcefully." In the meantime, dismissing criticism of Israeli atrocities as driven by anti-Semitism, Holocaust Industry CEO Elie Wiesel lent unconditional support to Israel - "Israel didn't do anything except it reacted.... Whatever Israel has done is the only thing that Israel could have done

Eudora, I don't disagree with what the article says, however one only has to look at what's happening in Europe, to see what happens when government mandates on minimum wages and employee benefits is law. Germany and the Netherlands are on the verge of bankruptcy, because of liberal unemployment programs, which allows laid off workers to collect 70% of their salary, for an indefinite period of time. Many of these unemployed people, have been collecting for 3 years, never bothering to look for work, that doesn't pay what they make on unemployment. Also, private businesses have been avoiding moving into Europe, because of the cost of doing business there. Heck, BMW, moved to the US, because labor cost are cheaper here than in Germany. It's going to be very difficult for the US to compete against China and India, in the coming years. You have a low wage job market with a high work ethic standard, that we don't come close to. My guess is that you will see protectionist type laws coming, which will cause more problems over all, than good. The only way to compete against other nations is to be better and on top in technology. We can only do this with good education and good moral values, which promotes top quality people.

We sell provide arms to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and at one time, Saddam Hussein and to Afghanistani's. Right now, our so-called friends the Israeli's, have been caught selling drone missiles to China, back in 1994. The Chinese recently sent the missiles back to Israel for repair and upgrade, which the Israeli's did and they were about to return them to China, before the US defense department found out about it. Now the Israeli's don't know what to do? Anger the US, their top arms and foreign aid provider, or the Chinese? If the Israeli's don't send the drones back to China, their credibility as the number 8 arms dealer in the world, will be shattered. We've propped up dictatorships, in order to have access to cheap oil. Well we did support Saddam at one time. Right now, the Saudi's, Kuwait, Jordan, and we were playing ball with the Taliban in Afghanistan, prior to the attack on 9/11, for the possibility of access to oil from the pipeline that the Russians wanted to build through that area. Then of course there is Venezuela, a big supplier of oil to the US. We give Israel unconditional support and turn a blind eye, when they commit atrocities, but rebuke Palestinians who fight back, against their oppression. A Human Rights Watch investigation of the Israeli attack on Jenin refugee camp in April 2002 found that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes." Some 4,000 Palestinians, more than a quarter of the camp's population, were rendered homeless in "destruction [that] extended well beyond any conceivable purpose of gaining access to fighters, and was vastly disproportionate to the military objectives pursued." Typical of the Israeli atrocities HRW documented in Jenin were these: a "thirty-seven-year-old paralyzed man was killed when the IDF [israel Defense Forces] bulldozed his home on top of him, refusing to allow his relatives the time to remove him from the home"; a "fifty-seven-year-old wheelchair-bound man

I knew it would take long for this to become a Catholic Bashing thread. Real spirit of Christ expressed there Arthur! BTW, Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and the word "catholic" means universal, so technically, Peter was Roman Catholic.

People who do not have faith do not have the spiritual eye's to understand what those of us who have faith, know through experience. To them, the Bible and religion is foolishness. It doesn't make sense to them, because they have not received grace from God, which gives them faith. It's the same as the non-believer's, who saw the disciples at Pentecost, who had received the Holy Spirit. The non-believer's accused them of being drunk or mad. The key response to all of this is, "compassion." Be compassionate towards them!Try to understand that they are spiritually poor and do not understand. Pray for them and by all means, love them! Be the example of Christ to them, not by being in their face with your religion, but rather by love. God can not be grasped except by love.

Wise question. My Hindu friend at College asked me "so Daniel, should i be a christian or a Catholic", and well, i didnt reeealy know, and i dont think theres reeealy any difference. I explained how catholics and protestants are the same, ish, but, quakers, JW's, and that lot, are just weird, and dont-be-them talk. But i think he thought there was a difference. But i didnt know what to say to him. Should a new convert to christianity be a convert to Catholisism or protestantism? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Generally, a person is drawn to Christ first, religion comes after. Myself, I was raised Catholic, but left at a young age. I was pretty much an agnostic. Then, I received the gift of faith, from Jesus Christ, which led be back into the Catholic Church. I could have join some other church, but I believe Jesus led me where I could be spiritually fed, more effectively. So, to answer the question, a person who has received the gift of faith in Jesus Christ, should pray about it and allow the Holy Spirit to lead them to the religion they are to become part of. The only other advice I would give is, stay away from any religion, which mandates that you no longer associate with family and friends, who are not members of that particular religion. Such religions are cults, and not part of the true body of Christ.

Not true. The majority of Palestinians, including the candidates up for election, do not desire the destruction of Israel. Hamas, does and will assassinate Palestinian leaders, who do not share their vision. Being the Palestinians have no viable police force, it will be difficult to deal with Hamas. Israel's policy of wiping out Palestinian refugee camps, in order to get at Hamas leaders, is a destructive and immoral policy. If this is our goal, it is immoral! You can not justify going to war, to bring your enemy into another country, for the sole purpose of containment. Bush never presented this as a reason, when he went to congress. If he did, he would've been rejected for it's unconstitutional. Agreed! Agreed, but we need to understand Islam and the culture better, so that we do not support regimes, that are oppressive and offensive to Islamic sensitivities. We can not force western style democracy in that part of the world. They just won't accept it. It should've done immediately and our forces withdrawn from Iraq. This would've shown that we have no intention of occupying Iraq, nor attacking Islam. It would've sent a message, that if you attack us, or attempt to assassinate one of our leaders, as Saddam did on H.W. Bush, we will come and get you, kill you and we don't care where you are or who you try to hid behind. We need to make Bush keep his campaign promise back in 2000, that we will not get involved with nation building, as we are trying to do in Iraq. Calling them terrorist is the wrong word. They are insurgents, mostly Iraqi Sunni's, who oppose us. Recent information from the pentagon states that only 5-2% of the insurgents, are not Iraqi's. Not with the correct policy, as I mentioned before,... get Saddam, and get out. Actually Bush got out because he knew, that we would end up with what we have now, if he had gone into Iraq. As far as the Kurds go, we have some problems coming from them. They too have a fundamentalist Islamic group, which supported Al Qaeda. The Al Qaeda training camps in northern Iraq, were in Kurd controlled territory. I suggest that you read what Prof. Norm Finkelstein has written about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It's shows that what our media has presented, is purely Israeli propaganda. FYI http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/ The war in Iraq merely fed the suspicion among many Muslims, that we are out to destroy Islam. This has been the message preached by the Osama Bin Laden and other Mullahs. Invading Iraq was a gift to the Islamic extremist. It also did not fit under the "Just War, " doctrine, that most of the mainstream Christian churches believe in. http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp We need to pray and we need to also behave as Christians. We can not accept injustice against people, who do not happen to be Christian or Jewish. The Palestinians have been assaulted since the establishment of the state of Israel, back in 1948. Again, read Norm Finkelstein, for an eye-opener. Yours in Christ Jesus Jim

It depends on what protestant denomination you are talking about and what beliefs. The Anglican and Lutheran churches, share very much in common with the Roman Catholic Church on matters of faith and worship. The differ on authority and apostolic succession. Other's like Calvinist, Methodist and Presbytarian, do not share in matters of worship and authority, and do not have apostolic succession at all. I wonder if you're really interested in knowing, or just opening up a can of worms?