It's true there are a bunch of different terms. That's why it's important to come to an agreement as to the definition of the terms.

For the definition of "Evolution", I went to the World Book Dictionary and then cited quotes from science textbooks that use  "Evolution" as defined in the dictionary.  

From the World Book Dictionary, A-K, Vol 23 page 737, the definition of "Evolution"...(aka "macro-Evolution" or "Darwinian Evolution").

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ........9 Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

Re: the highlighted:

Darwinism is the dictionary definition of Evolution, more properly called "macro-Evolution", change beyond species. 

Natural selection is not Evolution as per the dictionary definition but rather more correctly called "micro-Evolution", that is change within the same species. Natural selection is not Darwinian Evolution becasue new, higher genetic information is not gained, but instead tends to be lost at best. Natural selection only conserves existing genetic information in life forms.   

No one has a problem with the true science behind natural selection...which is understood as "micro-Evolution". 

The problem lies with the pseudo science which posits the dictionary definition of Darwinian Evolution as fact. This is the BIG LIE that molecular and genetic science has exposed.  

Well, Darwin theory are old theory about evolution...

Actual trend is called "evolutionary biology" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology ) but due to recent founding, a new trend called "Evolutionary Developmental biology" ( evo-devo ) is fastly growing...

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology , i think that you will somehow like it since it somehow hurt Darwin theory ( but it don't make true christian idea )...

Similarly, organismal form can be influenced by mutations in promoter regions of genes, those DNA sequences at which the products of some genes bind to and control the activity of the same or other genes, not only protein-specifying sequences. This finding suggested that the crucial distinction between different species (even different orders or phyla) may be due less to differences in their content of gene products than to differences in spatial and temporal expression of conserved genes. The implication that large evolutionary changes in body morphology are associated with changes in gene regulation, rather than the evolution of new genes, suggested that Hox and other "switch" genes may play a major role in evolution, something that contradicts the neo-darwinian synthesis.

Point is that science adapt to each new thing who is discover... science is not a fixed truth but more something who evolve toward the truth without really reach it... each new theory usually solve old question but reveal plenty of new one...

The problem that i have with religious pseudo-science is that it is all basic on thing who was writed several thousand year ago... religious pseudo-science is not able/wishing to integrate new fact...

Religion need to realize that the bible was written by human with limited knowledge... let say that God know everything and try to explain nuclear physic to somebody 2000-3000 thousand year ago and ask him to write everything in a book... what will be the result... the poor guy don't know some basic word like electron, proton, neutron... text in the bible have a similar scientific level that these from other people living in the same period... it is really stupid from Christian to use plenty of tme for try demonstrate that these old science in the bible is the truth... time will be better used to try rewrite a more modern religious text who embrace recent scientific discovery... after all, it remain enough unknow in true science for insert some Godly thing... by example, you have certainly ear of the big-bang theory... science can explain everything from the planck epoch ( 10-43 second after the big-bang, after the creation of the universe ) but before this, none of our sciences/physic laws apply... science speak of a "singularity"... well, i will accept that religious speak of God...

Now, something who will surprise you... The big-bang theory was made by a priest... that begin it can "explain" the religious creationist way, it was first rejected by the usual scientific... this example show that in some case, the "true" scientific can be as stubborn that religion :

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications, most notably, the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing"). In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory. This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest. Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation. Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation.

Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.

Now, back to the bible... Do you believe that everything was created 8012 year ago like some extremist christian or will you embrace the big-bang theory discover by a priest and accepted by the Pope itself... If you take the second choice, it show that the bible can be wrong at the scientific level ( but can be right about the general idea of creationism )... that the bible have scientific error don't mean that God is a idiot, it simply show that these who have wrote the bible was without the needed scientific knowledge... as today, try to explain how gravity can bend light when photon have no mass, to someone who don't know about the stress-energy tensor ( Einstein field equation ) and know only classical mechanic...

You didn't exactly point out any fundamentalists

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture.

Yes, evolution science teaches God does not exist. Darwin's theory is atheistic at its core. Its essence is that God had nothing to do with the creation of life. Organic matter came into being by pure chance and slowly evolved over eons of time into more complex living things through the process of natural selection and through a ceaseless battle for survival.  By teaching God is excluded from Creation, he created a dogma for the emerging new world religion, Atheism. His dogma is preached as true in every government school.

Darwinian Evolution Theory or macro-Evolution is considered sacrosanct in scientific circles today. Anyone who dares express doubt about it is regarded as unfit to be called a scientist.  If you doubt it, and want to open it to scientific criticism, it's a major sin in this up side down world today. 

But ...if Darwinian Evolution is true, and different species evolved from each other over millions of years, then we should have countless proofs, transitional forms showing how this new god, chance, operated. There shouldn't be any difficulty finding abundant evidence everywhere. And the evolutionary scientists went out to collect those transitional forms and found NONE. 

The search for the missing links has been excellently documented by A.N. Field in his book, "The Evolution Hoax Exposed."

You would think that finding no evidence would discourage the Darwin evolutionist scientists. but no...their motive wasn't to get closer to the truth. They were sent  to dig up whatever they wanted and they fabricated a few more ideas and the endless speculation began. They wanted to sow in the idea that Creation was not a Divine act. Voltaire can claim the merit for this since he ridiculted creation. Darwin's idea was so perfect becasue it suited the Atheistic line of thinking. 

So just to be clear, there would be no problem had Darwin left "evolution" as natural selection. That is indeed, true science called microevolution, a natural process. 

But once Darwin formulated his "Origin of the Species", he began to be called the high priest of Atheism. Darwinian Evolution theory has been moved into the ideological realm, a world view I've seen called Evolutionism. It isn't science when it become ideological.  

really? What true science directly contradicts such translations? 

I have some questions that have to do with reason.

Can one reasonable say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? 

Can matter create intelligence?

Can matter create conscience?

I say these questions cannot be answered sceintifically becasue the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously. 

Reason can recognize that matter cannot organize itself. Even young children know this. That it at least needs information and information is an expression of intelligence.  

Not lately.  

Got this in my email today which tells the whole story. 

It is a rare moment indeed when faith denominations of all stripes unite together in common cause, and it is rarer still when that cause is a political one, with a sole piece of legislation as its principal target. But when that law eviscerates the very foundation of religious liberty in America as protected under the First Amendment, it should not be surprising that Catholics and Jews, charismatic evangelical Christians, and mainline Lutherans alike find common cause in defense of their liberties.

Such is the case with the firestorm of opposition to Obamacare and the Obama Administration's attack on religious liberty. Under a new Obamacare mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House is mandating that many religious employers, with the exception of churches, provide health care coverage for contraception -- including abortion-inducing drugs -- thereby trampling upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. And it is this mandate that has caused a vehement response in churches and synagogues across the country.

Yesterday, the head of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, warned that the nation's 70 million Catholics are ready to go to war with the Administration's dictates, saying "Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church. This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets."

Donohue's remarks follow those of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and at least 153 Catholic bishops across the country who have weighed in with opposition to the mandate. "We Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so," wrote Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Michigan. Those penalties include fines imposed by the federal government that could cost larger organizations millions of dollars per year.

The Catholic Church is not alone in its opposition to Obamacare's onslaught against religious freedom. David Addington, The Heritage Foundation's vice president of Domestic and Economic Policy, details the growing ranks of the faithful  who say the Obama Administration has crossed a very dangerous line. The National Association of Evangelicals commented that "The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent" and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America stated, "In declining to expand the religious exemption within the healthcare reform law, the Obama Administration has disappointingly failed to respect the needs of religious organizations such as hospitals, social welfare organizations and more." The Agudath Israel of America stated its opposition, as did the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America.

The Obama Administration is beginning to feel the pressure. On Sunday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius authored an op-ed in USA Today defending the Obama Administration's actions, claiming that a very narrow exemption to the mandate is evidence that the White House is "working to strike the right balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing women's access to critical preventive health services." That exemption, though, does not apply to institutions like religious schools and hospitals. Sebelius might claim the Administration is offering grace to people of faith, but in fact it is not. In an editorial that ran the same day as Sebelius,' USA Today agreed with those standing on the side of religious liberty, writing that "in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform" the Obama Administration "galloped over" the line and violated the "simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs."

The Obama Administration's actions, though entirely counter to the freedom of religion, should not be surprising given the nature of the President's health care law. Obamacare has given the federal government broad power over one-sixth of the American economy and thereby purports to grant Washington the power to force religious institutions to take actions contrary to their faith. Addington writes  that this kind of concentration of power "has proved to be a drastic and dangerous experiment." America's religious leaders and the faithful have awoken to this wolf at their door and are lashing out in defense of their freedoms. Congress, too, should act now by repealing Obamacare and restoring the religious liberty that is so central to our way of life.

Its actually a perfect example of politics mixed with religion. The timing of the HHS announcement is all about politics and done purposely to deflate Romney and prolong the fights in the primary since Romney has no legs to stand on with the issue. Romneycare mandated the exact same thing in Massachusetts so in the end all he can do is pull the old Republican standby excuse of states rights. Once they load up on some clips of the candidates stating their opposition to the use of contraceptives the Democratic PACS will unload them on them public.

Because something made by the Gov don't please christian, they react like spoiled baby...

Nobody have complain when the Pledge of Allegiance was modified in 1954 from "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." to "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."... or when in 1957, the ""In God We Trust" was added on banknote...

A gov is not only there to please christian but other people too... if you are so much again gov, try to build your own politic party... it have happen in europe... there was communist party but they are exctint now, there is christian party but they are dying...

As for the "ready to go to war", it seem like the old crusade... why not restore the inquisition too... well, extremist Christian are not better that extremist Muslim... ready to go to war when somebody don't agree with them... if abortus is bad, God will send these people to hell... christian are not God and are not allowed to judge other... you have the right to prohibith people from your communauty to use abortus but you have no right to limit the freedom from other group...

By the way, why will 70 million Catholics people dictate their own choice to a population of 313 million of people... Democratie is about  the choice of the majority...

"Religion" knows what the Holy Bible is. (And I'll get into that later.) It is irreligion and non religion that has to get a grip of what the Bible is.

We have just discussed Isaias 40:22, "Is it he that sitteth on the globe (circle) of the earth?" and we see scientific truth embedded in Sacred Scripture. There are plenty of other texts that reveal historical truth as well.  And with all due respect, I disagree with your assertion that it is "stupid" that Christians point that out.

Yet, the Holy Bible is not a science book and not a history book; it is a religious book that contains religious truths.

We know the Bible contains religious truth (and science and historical truth) becasue God is the principal Author of all 73 Books of the Old and New Testaments. The Vatican Council, after declaring that God's revelation to mankind is contained in the Bible and Tradition and that the canon or list of Sacred Scriptures is complete in the authentic Latin Vulgate translation, plainly taught the doctrine of inspiration.

"The Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not becasue composed by merely human industry, they were thereupon approved by her authority; nor alone becasue they contain revelation without error; but becasue, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author, and as such were delivered to the Church herself."

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on the HOly Bible, Providentissimus Deus,  explains this divine authorship. He writes:

"God by His supernatural power in such a way incited and moved them (the sacred writers) to write, in sucha way assisted them in writing, that they should rightly  conceive in the mind, and should to write faithfully, and should express fitly with infallible truth, all those things and only those things which He Himself should order; otherwise He would not Himself be the Author of all Sacred Scripture."

So, the inspired writers were not mere passive instruments in their writings, but under the divine action are intelligent, active and free agents. They need not know the fact of their inpsiration, nor do they need in every instatnce a direct revelation from God. For example we know that the author of 2Machabees 2:27 abridged the five books of Jason of Cyrene and athat St.Luke consulted documents and gathered facts from "eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word". Their literary style and wording may be their own so that we find verbal differences among them in the Gospels.

Catholics believe that the divine testimony regarding the inspiration of the Bible was revealed by God to the Church in the days of the Apostles; that it has been preserved always from error by the promises of Jesus Christ; that it has been handed down to us, not merely by human tradition, but by the divine Tradition of the Church, which alone can infallibly interpret it.  

Yes, i have read it... but it seem that the difference between you and me is that you have only read the bible and nothing other...

I will demonstrate that you are wrong in your previous post about the name thing because you don't know about the hebrew naming convention ( who is not explain in the bible )...

Well, i have a first name ( given name ) who is Bruno and a familly name who is Thoumsin... some local tradition make that i have several middle name too : Alain, Georges, Ghislain...

Well, for keep it simple, because i am called "Bruno Thoumsin", you think that the full name of the Christ is "Jesus Immanuel"... it seem almost good for a 21 century point of view... only problem is that Immanuel is a hebrew given name and not a family name... buti will ignore these little mistake...

Where it is really wrong is that you assume that ancien hebrew have the same naming convention that us...

Family names began to gain popularity among Sephardic Jews in Spain, Portugal and Italy as early as the 10th or 11th century, but did not catch on among the Ashkenazic Jews of Germany or Eastern Europe until much later...

The practice of taking familly names became so common, in fact, that by the 12th century, the rabbis found it necessary to make a takkanah (rabbinical ruling) requiring Jews to have a Hebrew name... so, as today, jews have a name sililar to ours but have a Hebrw name too...

Hebrew names are used in prayer in and out of synagogue and for other religious rituals. When a person is called up in synagogue for an aliyah (the honor of reciting a blessing over a Torah reading), he is called up by his Hebrew name. The names that appear on a ketubah (marriage contract) or on a get (writ of divorce) are Hebrew names. When a people are ill and mi shebeirakh prayers are recited for their well-being, they are identified by Hebrew names. When a deceased person is remembered through the Yizkor prayers recited on certain holidays, the Hebrew name is used. Jewish tombstones sometimes carry the Hebrew name instead of or side-by-side with the secular name.

So let see how was named Hebrew people before the 10th century...

Historically, Hebrew did not have permanent family surnames at all. Within the Hebrew community, they used patronymics, such as David ben (son of) Joseph or Miriam bat (daughter of) Aaron. Names in that form are still used in synagogue and in Jewish legal documents such as the ketubah (marriage contract), but are rare outside of the religious context...

There are really only three surnames that are specifically Hebrew in nature: variations on Cohen, Levy and Israel. These names are derived from tribal ancestry that were recorded by the Jewish people and recognized in synagogue with various distinctions...

The surname Cohen comes from kohein, the Hebrew word for priest, and refers to patrilineal descendants of Aaron. Variations on this surname include Cohn, Cahn, Cone, Kohn, Kahn and more... The surname Levy comes from the biblical tribe of Levi, whose descendants the Levites had distinctive duties in the Temple period. Variations on this surname include Levin, Levine, Levitt and many others. Another specifically Hebrew surname is Israel, which is much less common. Israel basically means the rest of us. Variations on this surname include Israeli, Yisrael, Yisroel, Disraeli and more...

A Hebrew name begins with a given name, followed by ben (son of) or bat (daughter of), followed by the person's father's Hebrew name. If the person is a kohein (descendant of Aaron), the name is followed by "ha-Kohein." If the person is a Levite (descendant of the tribe of Levi), the name is followed by "ha-Levi." If the person or his father is a rabbi, some follow the name with "ha-Rav." This format of naming is seen as early as the Torah where, for example, Moses' successor Joshua is repeatedly referred to as Yehoshua ben Nun (Joshua, son of Nun). Note that the surname is not the same from generation to generation: Abraham's son Isaac is Yitzchak ben Avraham; Isaac's son Jacob is Ya'akov ben Yitzchak, and so forth. Moses' Hebrew name would be Moshe ben Amram ha-Levi (because he is a member of the tribe of Levi but not a descendant of Aaron), while his brother Aaron would be Aharon ben Amram ha-Kohein (because Aaron was a priest).

So, let return to Jesus... well, the real name is not Jesus but Joshua... the hebrew Yehoshua was translated Iesous in Greek... and the Greek Iesous was translated Iesus... in English from the Latin, it become Jesus in place of Joshua if it was directly translated from Hebrew to English... Joshua ( Jesus ) mean "Yahweh ( God ) delivers" or "Yahweh ( God ) rescues"...

So, the real name of Jesus will have be something like "Joshua ben Yosef"... "Joshua ben Yosef ah-kohein" for a descendant of Aaron... "Joshua ben Yosef ah-levi"  for a member of the Levi tribe...

Your impossible "Jesus Immanuel" will have mean "god delivers god with us" or "god rescue god with us"...

Sure that you will find a strange way around the traditional Hebrew naming convention for argument that you are right but i think that other will see that you was wrong about your "Jesus Immanuel"... you cannot compare actual naming convention with the old hebrew one for correct one of the mistake of the bible...

Well, there is plenty of example in the bible that God is not Omniscient...

When God is preparing to go on another murdering spree, he tells the people of Israel to smear blood on their doors so that he’ll know which homes are occupied by his chosen people (Exodus 12:13). With this directive completed, he’s free to kill all the Egyptian firstborn male children without accidentally harming an Israelite, but why does he need blood on the doors to serve as a reminder if he knows everything?

After the creation, God asks Adam to look over the animals and find one “suitable” for him (Genesis 2:18-20). The all-knowing god is absolutely clueless as to what kind of partner Adam might desire. Did he not already realize that he was going to make a woman for him? Isn’t it also disgusting for God to propose that Adam should find an animal to be his sexual companion?

During Noah’s flood, God kills almost the entire world population of humans and animals because the people are evil. Why would an omniscient god lack the common sense to get his creation right the first time so that he isn’t required to redo everything?

Jonah, like Cain before him, was able to leave the presence of God (Jonah 1:3). According to Zephaniah, God will search through Jerusalem with candles and find people who scoff at him (1:12). Why would God need candles to see in the dark?

Judges 1:19 says that God was with the men of Judah in a battle, yet they couldn’t drive out the enemies because the other side was riding upon chariots of iron. Is the super hero "Iron man" more powerful that God !!!

if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can literally cause a mountain to jump into the sea by telling it to do so (Matthew 17:20 and 21:21).

Lulapilgrim, you seem to have a lot of ( blind ) faith... please, try to move some mountain from a few inch before coming back in these topic... since all who is writen in the bible is true, it will not be a problem for you... since i am not a believer, please use a camera for record the power of your faith... i will not believe what you wrote without serious real evidence...

LULA posts:

OK. Good. Religious texts interest me too. Let's discuss. 

Thoumsin,

I hope, after our our discussion, that you can see that whoever wrote the italics made an error saying that Isaias 7:14 plainly declares that she shall call His name Emmanuel...?

Thank you for the demonstration. Very interesting. 

Thank you. Your point is well made and well taken. Even though I don't think the full name of the Christ is Jesus Emmanuel, I should not have described Jesus the Christ, "Emmanuel, God with us" as a first and last name like ours is.  

Agree. Well said. I've also seen that Joshua or Jeshua in Hebrew means "Yahweh is salvation."

So to that I would further add..

The name, in Hebrew Mashiach, is held by the Jews to be more correctly transliterated Messiah than Messias. The Greek translation of Messiah, as rendered in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament is Christos, from Chrio= to anoint. 

To be exact, Our Lord's name is Jesus; His office is the Christ, the Anointed One; that is Jesus the Christ in our language. We drop the article in common use and just call Him Jesus Christ. 

Sorry, the person who wrote that which is in blue is wrong. Christ's birth fulfilled this prophecy to a "T".

When Our Lord consented to accept the "the Christ," or simply "Christ", as His official designation, He claimed to be the prophesied Messiah, see Daniel 9:25-26; St. Matt. 16:17, 20; 26:63-64; St.Mark 8:29; 14:16-22; St.Luke 9:20-21; St.John 6:70 and etc. 

Back to the Emmanuel, "which being interpreted is God with us" is the name given to Our Lord Jesus Christ in prophecy Is. 7:14 and 8:8. and referred to by St. Matt. 1: 16-25 

"And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. [17] So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations. [18] Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. [19] Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

[21] And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: [23] Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [24] And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. [25] And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." 

The "Emmanuel" prophecy of Isaias 7:14 quoted in verse 23 foretold about 700 years in advance that God's salvation would be marked by the extraordinary event of a virgin giving birth to a son. St.Matthew 1:23 reveals 2 truths. 

The first truth is that Jesus is in fact the God with us foretold by the prophet. This is how Christian Tradition has always understood. The Church has always officially condemned an interpretation denying the messianic sense of the Isaias text. Christ is truly God with us. He is God made man. St.John 1:14. The name Emmanuel refers more directly to Jesus being the Incarnate Word.

The second truth is that  Mary in whom the prophecy of Is. 7:14 is fulfilled, was a virgin before and during the birth itself. The miraculous "sign" given by God that salvation had arrived was precisely that a woman would be a virgin and a mother at the same time. 

So to recap just a bit..

To Isaias, God made known more fully than before in Genesis 3:15, that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin. This miraculous birth of the Son of God, our Lord is recorded in St.Matthew as we have just read and alos in St.Luke 2:6. 

To Isaias 35:4, God made known in terms clearer than before, that the Christ is God Himself. "God Himself will come and save you."  As we know Isaias called Him the  "Emmanuel, God with us", and in verse 9, "God the Mighty, Father of the world to come, the PRince of Peace." Isaias told in detail of the Christ being wounded for our iniquities, being led to the slaughter, laying down His life for the sin of the world v. 53. The fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded in the four Gospels. 

Ya, but progressive towards what? The gutter or the stars?

In the political sense, people, no matter what party, who claim they are progressive are really Liberals. 

I dislike using the term "conservative" to describe religious sects but understand what you mean. 

Ha, I'd say religious sects disappear (that is become religiously irrelevant) because they mock Almighty God and abandon His laws. We certainly are seeing alot of that kind of "progressivism" nowadays. 

Sorry, we cannot put the Catholic Church in the mix. It doesn't belong becasue it doesn't fit. 

According to the 2010 World Almanac, worldwide the Catholic Church's membership increased. 1,146,656,000 

 "One flock" and "one Shephard". Christ's little flock is growing, Smoothseas. Baptism's happening all over the world in the kingdom of God. Yep, the CC is growing. According to the Annuario Pontificio (Pontifical Yearbook), a work that's published annually, the number of Catholics  rose worldwide by 19 million for a total of 1.166 BILLION.

According to the Official Catholic Directory, the USA Catholic population also grew to just over 68 million. The new Catholics included 887,145 infant Baptisms, 42,629 adult Baptisms, and 81, 775 receptions of other Christians into full communion with the Church. 

One of those religious sects that became irrelevant becasue they decided to flout God's laws and install homosexual bishops are the Anglicans. Well, last year a great number of them were fed up and left and returned, came home to the CC. 

No, it's a perfect example of politics attacking religion, that is the free exercise of it. 

All this is a side issue. 

What lurks behind this is Obama is pursuing his ideology..Secular Humanism and Socialism. It's 100% hostile to religion and denies the religious life and the Supernatural. Socialism not only rejects God but replaces Him with the State. The new, anti-religious rules implementing "Obamacare"  are a natural consequence of this law's socialistic and statist inspiration. In face of the almighty State, neither individuals or institutions, whether civil or religious, have true freedom. Since the State is considered to be the source of everything, human liberties are seen as mere concessions that the State can take away as it pleases. 

That's truly what it is and why the religious communities will not accept Obama's compromise. It offers nothing.