XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism
From: duckgumbo32@cox.net
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:21:38 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:
>>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.
Yep, life begins at conception and ends at natural death.
>>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.
The Pope was given his job description in Jerusalem in 33AD by Jesus himself
and
is still in place in 2009AD.
>>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).
Both parts are correct. The line of successor to Peter has never been broken.
>>>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.
Great.
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)
|
