XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism   
   From: doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca   
      
   duke  wrote in   
   news:s5vei51g6rk54vj45uqob63nebi2lrdq2l@4ax.com:   
      
   >On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:30:45 GMT, Dave Oldridge   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>duke  wrote in   
   >>news:nr8ci51s1glbcpltvkej7um4tajulth584@4ax.com:   
   >>   
   >>>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.   
   >>   
   >>No, actually the gametes are alive before conception.   
   >   
   >So is skin.  Now, when you want to get back to when the life of a human   
   >being begins, get back to me   
      
   Epidermis is actually mostly dead.   
   >   
   >>>>>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.   
   >   
   >>And your authority for this is that some bishop of Rome declared it?   
   >   
   >Nope, scripture.   
      
   What scripture says that the bishop of Rome is automagically the leader   
   of the entire Church?  Was Peter not the leader when bishop of Antioch?   
   When bishop of Alexandria?   
   >   
   >>>>>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.   
   >   
   >>The succession of bishops of Rome is, indeed, intact.  How many OTHER   
   >>lineages go back to Peter?  I'm sure Peter consecrated more than one   
   >>in his career.   
   >   
   >Well, manhood does.  So does "live human".   
      
   Huh?   
      
   >   
   >>For example, the Orthodox bishop of Alexandria is called "pope" by his   
   >>churches.   
   >   
   >But not successor to Peter.   
      
   Oddly again, yes, a successor to Peter as bishop of a see.   
      
      
   --   
   Dave Oldridge+   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)