Adam and 4000 BC

In answer to: You've said in another thread that the children of Adam were incestuous and that even the outcasted Cain got to take a sister or niece as a mate even though he no longer dwelt with the family. (did they ship her to him?)

So. You've forgotten the answer you gave in your 'bible questions' thread.

It was:

"So yes, Cain took his sister for a wife, although it could have been a niece or grand niece."

and:

"And no, it was not an abomination as you call it. You only think of as an abomination because that is what you have been trained to believe and rightly so but not because taking your sister or niece
for a wife is inherently wrong but because doing so now, has the greatest risk of inherited genetic problems and so it has been made a taboo or as you put it an 'abomination'."



I'm glad to see that you're arriving at better answers now. You're learning, as am I.

My conscience began to trouble me in that thread, as it does when my thoughts come into conflict with someone traditionally devout like yourself. I express myself to learn and to share, not to corrupt the literal believers who need to believe as they do. But, it does come to that in time, everytime I engage in debate of old testament writings.

And the thing is, it's not that I don't believe in the writings. I do. Just in a different comprehension - but in the belief that the Holy Spirit is in them.

But, as a sinner, my sin often takes the form of competetiveness (the sin of pride) and in my weakness I can lose myself, temporarily, in it. When the realization that my sin was manifesting itself often in that old thread, I made a couple of more-gracious posts in penance, and left the discussion.

As I do now, in this thread, where again my foolish pride has been prompting me to engage in another overly critical series of posts. We will engage again, no doubt. But no longer in this thread. God bless you WaterBrother. I know He blesses your Faith..

 

How many divided Catholic Churches (if we count the Orthodox Church as "Catholic in this because the beliefs are nearly identical except for what the role of the Roman bishop/Pope is, although they do agree that Peter has primacy---then it is 2) are there compared to Protestant?

How good can individual opinions be? Look at the Anglican Church imploding as an example...

It isn't the human Church that is the interpreter either, that must be made clear, but the spiritual Church (just like not everything to leave the Pope's mouth is infallible). Constant Tradition governs interpretation rather than novel new ideas. Together with Scripture, Tradition makes up the source of all doctrines and dogmas.

 

No, I have not for gotten.

yes that seems to be what I said.

My answers are no better or worse than they ever have been.

So long, it's been good to know you.

 

If it hadn't been for the Emperors of Rome, you'd probably be spending your days telling us why Mithra or Isis are our deliverers, or why we all need to be circumcised and give up bacon.

 

In a sense, they're all divided Catholic churches. They just divided a few centuries ago.

 

That is a good point.

What I was referring to more was the almost endless sects of the Protestant groups.
These and then the many many more to follow:




Even if we count the main reforms of the 16th Century like Luther, Zwingli, Storch/Munzer, King Henry VIII, Calvin, Menno Simons, and Brown---that would still only puts us at 10 main sects of Nicene Christianity. Then we have the Assyrian and Oriental Churches which are not, as I remember, Nicene.

 

You really think that God and the Christ needed the Emperors of Rome to spread the truth? (Luke 19:40) “I tell YOU, If these remained silent, the stones would cry out.”