XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism   
   From: doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca   
      
   duke  wrote in   
   news:7fe4i51jrjimot1ijgilhfrsa9bj0sg16d@4ax.com:   
      
   >On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:44:15 GMT, Dave Oldridge   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>Yep, no doubt about that.  Our soul is infused in each of us at our   
   >>>>>conception. We define our soul at our animation and essence - we   
   >>>>>with our human souls prefer good over bad, right over wrong, love   
   >>>>>over hate.   
   >   
   >>>>Ancient Hebrew tradition places this infusion at the moment called   
   >>>>"quickening" which occurs when the fetus first moves on its own.  If   
   >>>>nature is to be believed, then pregnancy in humans begins at   
   >>>>implantation.   
   >   
   >>>Or the first date between the egg and the sperm.   
   >   
   >>According to what teaching?  And why aren't heroic efforts being made   
   >>to "save" the very significant number of zygotes that simply fail to   
   >>implant?   
   >   
   >Ancient Jewish tradition does not preclude more modern Christian   
   >understanding. But, maybe my words speak too early.  "First date" is my   
   >version opposing life starting at birth pushed by many others making   
   >abortion appear ok.   
      
   My choice of implantation is deliberate.  It is not possible to have an   
   abortion without implantation and nobody in their right mind would even   
   consider it necessary.  If I know the woman well enough, I can sometimes   
   spot a pregnancy within hours of implantation.  That's because   
   implantation causes biochemical changes that affect the brain (among   
   other functions).  Those changes also prevent any further implantations.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>be a Christian?   
   >>>>>Well, I'm a Christian.  But I don't know what you are.   
   >   
   >>>>Read the Nicene Creed.  It pretty much sums up my core belief   
   >>>>system.   
   >   
   >>>Then we're both Roman Catholic.   However, please note that I have   
   >>>lost track of our discussion.  I can't determine if we're on the same   
   >>>page or opposite pages.   
   >   
   >>Catholic, but I'm not Roman...my lineage objected to the novel   
   >>doctrine of papal infallibility about a century and a half ago when it   
   >>was first proposed.   
   >   
   >Which Catholic would that be?  The EOC ducked out on the Pope 1000   
   >years ago.   
      
   Or the Pope ducked out on them--depends on whose slant you are reading.   
   But no, my own orders are LCC, which stem from the Old Catholics.   
      
   >I would guess all doctrines are novel at some point.   
      
   Yep, including the notion that the bishop of Rome is Peter's successor as   
   overall leader of the Church (not just as bishop of Rome).  Peter served   
   as bishop in Antioch and Alexandria before Rome.   
      
   Personally, I tend to take my bishops individually rather than imputing   
   anything special to any one of them.  They are ALL successors of the   
   apostles, some just better at it than others.   
      
   My objections to creationism are principally to the latter-day forms of   
   it which began as an attempt to dress biblical literalism in   
   pseudoscientific clothing and peddle it to school boards as a way around   
   the US constitition's ban on an establishment of religion.   
   The spiritual successors of THAT tradition are still at the game of   
   trying to get their religious notions (often heresies at root) into the   
   public school science classes.   
      
   --   
   Dave Oldridge+   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)