XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.recovery.catholicism   
   From: doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca   
      
   duke  wrote in   
   news:a3lhi51jfticmd1fplo9qdool650br6flg@4ax.com:   
      
   >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.   
      
   How could we tell?   
      
   The Church has actually been broken since the Great Schism.  The claim of   
   current popes to universal hegemnony is at least somewhat spurious.   
      
   However, the bishop of Rome is still a bishop in the apostolic succession   
   and is one of the five archbishops who were the imporant rulers of the   
   ancient Church.  As such he certainly deserves our respect.   
      
      
   --   
   Dave Oldridge+   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)