XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism
From: doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca
duke wrote in
news:eno9i5pm997siid6m9mephv2tdqs3hqn7q@4ax.com:
>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.
Life is continuous. There are events along the way, some more
significant than others. There are nearly nine months separating
implantation from 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.
Actually, there was more or less a "big five" in the early days of the
established Church, those being Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and
Constantinople. When Rome and Constantinople (regrettably)
excommunicated one another, things became more complex.
>
>I don't know the term "LCC".
Liberal Catholic Church. Though I'm doctrinally closer to the EOC than
to most LCC bishops these days.
>
>>>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.
The first part is correct. The last, not necessarily so and there is not
unanimity on the doctrine (clearly).
>
>>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".
Same as RCC orders only LCC.
>>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.
Actually, the pilgrims were, in fact, refugees from the reaction to their
own theocratic depredations. They literally murdered every catholic they
could get their hands on duringn Cromwell's dictatorship in England.
>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.
There can, of course, be, for believers, no questioning the basic
creationism of our ancient creeds. As I said, my main complaint is that
there are people spreading lies about science and libels against
scientists and teaching others that such sins are necessary to salvation
in Christ. That comes under definitions of herey as old as the Church!
>
>The Dukester, American-American
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>Pope Paul VI
>*****
And I think he was correct about this.
--
Dave Oldridge+
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
