XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism   
   From: duckgumbo32@cox.net   
      
   On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:17:32 GMT, Dave Oldridge    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   As I tried to tell you, I'm not arguing whether the sperm is half-way in, or   
   has   
   already starting building a home.  Life begins at conception, not birth.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Great.   
      
   >>>>Then we're both Roman Catholic.   
      
   >>>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.   
      
   The Pope was in place in the CC, western and eastern divisions, before the   
   schism.  The Pope was still in place in the western division afterwards, to be   
   renamed the RCC.   
      
   I don't know the term "LCC".   
      
   >>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.   
      
   Uh, actually, Jesus assigned the "Pope = poppa = father"  job description-title   
   to Simon Peter in Jerusalem.  Peter eventually settled in Rome/Vatican later   
   on.   
   And as successors to St. Peter, the man selected as Bishop of Rome is also the   
   Pope.   
      
   >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.   
      
   So, please explain your "orders".   
      
   >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.   
      
   There are obviously a small group of protest_ants that demand that every word   
   in   
   the bible is literally truth.  I myself am perfectly happy with the US   
   government not endorsing a particular Church as the pilgrims arrived fighting   
   that concept.   
      
   That God created the universe and all in it is beyond serious question.  That's   
   my creationism.  But a 6000 year old earth of biblical historicity is out of   
   the   
   question, but is still the premise of the fundamentalist creationist.   
      
   The Dukester, American-American   
   *****   
   "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."   
   Pope Paul VI   
   *****   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)