XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism   
   From: duckgumbo32@cox.net   
      
   On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:35:48 GMT, Dave Oldridge    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Before or after it is alive.   
      
   >>>>>>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?   
      
   Pope Peter said the Bishop of Rome is automagically [sic] the leader of the   
   entire Church.   
      
   >Was Peter not the leader when bishop of Antioch?   
   >When bishop of Alexandria?   
      
   Yes and yes.   
      
   >>>>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.   
      
   But not a successor to Peter as Pope.   
      
   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)