Milk before meat

[twopekinguys]

It’s not sad. It’s pure common sense. It’s not a judgment against the people as people—it is simply that if you are going to find out information regarding any belief system, the primary source should ALWAYS be the believers. Going to people who are biased against it is at best a second choice…and is, in reality, about third or fourth.

So of course when someone leaves the CoJCoLDS they lose credibility…and to the precise amount that someone who leaves the Catholic church loses credibility about Catholicism–no more and no less.

Unless it’s OK with you that I get all my information about Catholicism from Tim Lott or J. Ernest Freques?

So following your logic (if you can call it that) , people still in that belief system would have a bias. So why listen to them?

What you are not getting is you have to balance the information. You can’t just automatically dismiss an ex-mormon for what they are saying. Unfortunately, I have seen that repeatedly here.

One of the most common things said is how a former mormon is shunned if they leave, and all the mormons say “oh no, that doesn’t happen, you’re wrong”. Yet you proved it by your earlier statement.

Please don’t speak for Catholics, we don’t automatically dismiss what a former Catholic says.

 

[twopekinguys]

Given that I posted the LAST set of references–two out of five or six references that I have posted in total–fifteen minutes before your diatribe claiming that I had not posted any, I find your claim here a little odd.

…and in this last set, sir, I believe that you will find that it is rather directly stated that the rapist is Catholic.

Where does it say that the stepfather is Catholic? After all, that was your original statement.

 

[Stephen168]

Actually, that is a good example. When the “first vision” story was told to me (and any time it was referenced later for that matter), it was shown in a manner that God the Father revealed His Son to tallk to JS. I understood this to be in the same light as when God spoke from heaven when Jesus was baprized. I was never told that Jesus and God were 2 seperate beings and not one unified Lord as taught in traditional Christianity. Basically, the teaching that Jesus was the “first born” of the Father and not God Himself in another way as part of the Trinity. Being told this in the beginning, I would have had A LOT more questions and concerns.

I guess joining a religion that calls itself Christian and not having them tell you who they believe Christ to be is surprising. Is that the meat that started you looking away from Mormonism?

 

[wwolverine]

I read two pages of this discussion and went dizzyz
Could someone tell me what is happening? what is the question on this forum and what is the questioner expecting? is it from Mormons point of view of Catholic point of view or whatever?

 

[aquabatix]

I guess joining a religion that calls itself Christian and not having them tell you who they believe Christ to be is surprising. Is that the meat that started you looking away from Mormonism?

Well that was the start, then it seemed to be a snowball effect after that.

 

[Stephen168]

Well that was the start, then it seemed to be a snowball effect after that.

Did you convert or return to the Catholic Church?

 

[Stephen168]

Where does it say that the stepfather is Catholic? After all, that was your original statement.

She referenced a blogger who made the same assumption she did.

 

[dianaiad]

You were saying that you understood Catholic doctrine better than Catholics.

You presented yourself as being knowledgeable a bout a subject that you couldn’t even spell.

And “Great googly moogly” is your “level” of discourse since you used it.

From “The free online Dictionary of Computing” spelling flame

• A Usenet posting ostentatiously correcting a
  previous article’s spelling, possibly as a way of casting
  scorn on the point the article was trying to make, instead of
  actually responding to that point (compare dictionary
  flame). Of course, people who are more than usually slovenly
  spellers are prone to think any correction is a spelling
  flame. It’s an amusing comment on human nature that spelling
  flames themselves often contain spelling errors.*

 

[dianaiad]

Where does it say that the stepfather is Catholic? After all, that was your original statement.

(from post # 62) Here is another quote that states rather directly that the rapist is indeed a Catholic:

Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho insisted that “God’s law is above any human law. So when a human law … is contrary to God’s law, this human law has no value.” He only briefly addressed the decision to retain the stepfather as a Catholic while excommunicating the mother and doctors. Cardoso simply said that while the stepfather committed “a heinous crime … the abortion – the elimination of an innocent life – was more serious”.

Try clicking on the link.

this is the most direct statement that the rapist is Catholic. However, in all of the articles about this case, NONE have brought up the possibility that he might not have been Catholic. It is actually a red herring of the smelliest for you to derail the conversation by claiming that there is no proof that he was—when indeed any proof here, given the reactions of all concerned (especially the reactions of the Cardinal involved) only make sense if he IS Catholic.

If he had not been, there would be no questions about why the church doesn’t excommunicate him–even the dumbest reporter would know better than to ask a question as assinine as ‘why don’t you excomunicate the rapist’ if the church didn’t have the authority to excommunicate him in the first place.

So get over it already. The rapist is a Catholic. The reason he was not excommunicated is because the church does not consider the continuous molestation and rape of a child over the course of three years to be serious enough for that level of discipline, whereas getting an abortion for his nine year old victim IS considered to be a serious enough sin to result in a latae sententiae (notice the spelling, answersplease) excommunication.

THAT, my friend, is fact. Archbishop Sobrinho said so.

 

[Stephen168]

"dianaid logic:

A. Canon Law lists the most serious sins against God for latae sententiae excommunication.

B. The Bishop said abortion was more serious than rape.

Therefore:

He made several statements about how his sin (pedophelia and rape) was not as serious—worthy of excommunication

–as abortion is.

The reason he was not excommunicated is because the church does not consider the continuous molestation and rape of a child over the course of three years to be serious enough for that level of discipline, whereas getting an abortion for his nine year old victim IS considered to be a serious enough sin to result in a latae sententiae (notice the spelling, answersplease) excommunication.

‘B’ is clear from the news reports. Because I’m not a Canon lawyer, I was looking for a reference for ‘A.’

 

[Stephen168]

Good luck with that, I have asked her numerous times for a reference and haven’t gotten one yet.

Maybe an assumption is as good as a reference in Mormonism.

With all due respect, how could you not know this, when Joseph Smith specifically mentioned two separate Beings appearing? Standing side by side?

 

[Answersplease]

From “The free online Dictionary of Computing” spelling flame

• A Usenet posting ostentatiously correcting a
  previous article’s spelling, possibly as a way of casting
  scorn on the point the article was trying to make, instead of
  actually responding to that point (compare dictionary
  flame). Of course, people who are more than usually slovenly
  spellers are prone to think any correction is a spelling
  flame. It’s an amusing comment on human nature that spelling
  flames themselves often contain spelling errors.*

Wow. Your “level of discourse” just gets better and better.

My spelling errors are mostly due to typing errors.

You were acting like you knew a Catholic practice better than Catholics and you spelled it incorrectly more than once. I can show you the posts if you like.

I was not the one acting as if I knew a specific Catholic practice better than Catholics, if I did I would be sure to try to spell it right.

 

[Answersplease]

I read two pages of this discussion and went dizzyz
Could someone tell me what is happening? what is the question on this forum and what is the questioner expecting? is it from Mormons point of view of Catholic point of view or whatever?

I just presented the various aritcles in the original post and a few subsequent posts for general discussion.

 

[twopekinguys]

(from post # 62) Here is another quote that states rather directly that the rapist is indeed a Catholic:

Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho insisted that “God’s law is above any human law. So when a human law … is contrary to God’s law, this human law has no value.” He only briefly addressed the decision to retain the stepfather as a Catholic while excommunicating the mother and doctors. Cardoso simply said that while the stepfather committed “a heinous crime … the abortion – the elimination of an innocent life – was more serious”.

Try clicking on the link.

this is the most direct statement that the rapist is Catholic. However, in all of the articles about this case, NONE have brought up the possibility that he might not have been Catholic. It is actually a red herring of the smelliest for you to derail the conversation by claiming that there is no proof that he was—when indeed any proof here, given the reactions of all concerned (especially the reactions of the Cardinal involved) only make sense if he IS Catholic.

If he had not been, there would be no questions about why the church doesn’t excommunicate him–even the dumbest reporter would know better than to ask a question as assinine as ‘why don’t you excomunicate the rapist’ if the church didn’t have the authority to excommunicate him in the first place.

So get over it already. The rapist is a Catholic. The reason he was not excommunicated is because the church does not consider the continuous molestation and rape of a child over the course of three years to be serious enough for that level of discipline, whereas getting an abortion for his nine year old victim IS considered to be a serious enough sin to result in a latae sententiae (notice the spelling, answersplease) excommunication.

THAT, my friend, is fact. Archbishop Sobrinho said so.

No red herring at all, at least you finally put it out there. That’s all I have been asking all along. Not that hard to understand really. After all, your original statement was that the 9 year old girl got excommunicated, and that was obviously wrong, so asking for proof about the father was not illogical.

I have never said there wasn’t any proof, so again DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
I merely requested numerous times for you to provide proof for what you claimed. Why take so long if it was so readily available? Do you expect us to believe EVERYTHING you say without proof?

Also, why couldn’t you have provided it on the orginal thread that you yourself derailed,
and never came back to? Don’t accuse me of something that you yourself do frequently.
(ie.the thread you left)

Yes, rape is heinous, as was stated, and no one has disputed that. However, murder IS worse. Yes, abortion IS murder. Unfortunately, mormons don’t believe that, So you see, you are the one that needs to get over it.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow. Your “level of discourse” just gets better and better.

My spelling errors are mostly due to typing errors.

You were acting like you knew a Catholic practice better than Catholics and you spelled it incorrectly more than once. I can show you the posts if you like.

I was not the one acting as if I knew a specific Catholic practice better than Catholics, if I did I would be sure to try to spell it right.

I simply posted the definition of “spelling flame,” answersplease. I was not commenting upon your spelling expertise.

…as to knowing a specific Catholic practice better than Catholics, that’s a problem for you. You see, a few of the replies to my inquiries about this were that most Cathlics do NOT know about latae sententiae excommunication–and that’s why there aren’t that many of them. It seems that one must be aware of the fact that one is committing a sin that actually results in it in order to be in effect. If this is true, and I know about it, then I know “a specific practice better than Catholics.” Ipso facto.

Please notice, though, that I am discussing this issue with CATHOLICS. I’m not going out and attempting to ‘educate’ non-Catholics about it.

 

[dianaiad]

No red herring at all, at least you finally put it out there. That’s all I have been asking all along. Not that hard to understand really. After all, your original statement was that the 9 year old girl got excommunicated, and that was obviously wrong, so asking for proof about the father was not illogical.

You kept demanding the references for quite some time after I posted them, claiming that I did not post them. That is a red herring.

I have never said there wasn’t any proof, so again DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
I merely requested numerous times for you to provide proof for what you claimed. Why take so long if it was so readily available? Do you expect us to believe EVERYTHING you say without proof?

I posted references several times. You kept demanding them for literally days after I first posted them.

Also, why couldn’t you have provided it on the orginal thread that you yourself derailed,
and never came back to? Don’t accuse me of something that you yourself do frequently.
(ie.the thread you left)

Yes, rape is heinous, as was stated, and no one has disputed that. However, murder IS worse. Yes, abortion IS murder. Unfortunately, mormons don’t believe that, So you see, you are the one that needs to get over it.

I have nothing to ‘get over.’

I disagree that in this case it was a worse sin for the mother to act in a way that saved her daughter’s life and health than it was for the stepfather to molest and rape her in the first place.

I will reserve my opinion of the mother’s obliviousness regarding that abuse in the first place.

 

[twopekinguys]

You kept demanding the references for quite some time after I posted them, claiming that I did not post them. That is a red herring.

um…nope. Since your interpretive skills have been lacking with several things, I wanted to see the quote. It isn’t up to me to track down all of your links.

I posted references several times. You kept demanding them for literally days after I first posted them.

But how many days did it finally take you to come to that conclusion? Again, it is not up to me to click every link you provide.

I have nothing to ‘get over.’

Ah, you love throwing that out there, but don’t particularly like hearing it now do you?

I disagree that in this case it was a worse sin for the mother to act in a way that saved her daughter’s life and health than it was for the stepfather to molest and rape her in the first place.

Of course you would disagree since mormons allow and condone abortions.

Murder is murder, born or unborn.

Before you even say anything, yes, mormons do condone abortion. If a person goes and seeks councelling about getting one, and the bishop or whomever says it is ok, then that is condoning abortion.

I will reserve my opinion of the mother’s obliviousness regarding that abuse in the first place.

Yes, the mother was wrong for keeping the child in that environment if she knew what was going on. I don’t think that is in dispute.

 

[dianaiad]

um…nope. Since your interpretive skills have been lacking with several things, I wanted to see the quote. It isn’t up to me to track down all of your links.

It is up to you if you have requested them. You may not demand them, and then, after I provide them, pretend that I didn’t comply. That I did it by imbedding a link that takes you directly to the article rather than providing the MLA citation that requires you to go look it up was a courtesy to you.

 

[Answersplease]

I simply posted the definition of “spelling flame,” answersplease. I was not commenting upon your spelling expertise.

People can decide for themselves what you were trying to do, it is plainly obvious.

…as to knowing a specific Catholic practice better than Catholics, that’s a problem for you. You see, a few of the replies to my inquiries about this were that most Cathlics do NOT know about latae sententiae excommunication–and that’s why there aren’t that many of them. It seems that one must be aware of the fact that one is committing a sin that actually results in it in order to be in effect. If this is true, and I know about it, then I know “a specific practice better than Catholics.” Ipso facto.

Wow. You acted like you knew it better than the Catholics who were “arguing” with you about it.

And it doesn’t surprise me that you Know a Catholic practice that you have specifically looked up, better than many Catholics like the ones who don’t really research their faith much.

But note, you specifically said the Catholics that were “arguing” with you about it, on the other thread.

(color added)

As to latae sententaie

…I have a sneaking suspicion that I understand it better than most of the posters who were arguing with me about it.

Please notice, though, that I am discussing this issue with CATHOLICS. I’m not going out and attempting to ‘educate’ non-Catholics about it.

That argument doesn’t work, this is a public forum and there are many observers from all sorts of religions.

It is not exclusively between you and the Catholics you are arguing with.

 

[dianaiad]

People can decide for themselves what you were trying to do, it is plainly obvious.

Yes. It is. I was quoting the definition of ‘spelling flame’ from a dictionary of internet terms. I quoted all of it, not wanting to be accused of taking things out of context. Besides, if I were going to criticise your posts, it wouldn’t be your spelling I’d aim at, but rather your habit of putting quotes around your own replies so that it is a royal pain in the keyboard to quote you in an answer. Please, do not put quotes around your OWN words, Stephen.

Wow. You acted like you knew it better than the Catholics who were “arguing” with you about it.

I was debating…and arguing one’s own point of view is what a debate is all about. I have learned a great deal…and so have those who debated with me about it.

And it doesn’t surprise me that you Know a Catholic practice that you have specifically looked up, better than many Catholics like the ones who don’t really research their faith much.

You really need to make up your mind. Shouldn’t I go look up stuff I want to know about? When I do, shouldn’t I go to Catholic sources (like the actual canon law) when I want to know about Catholic things? And shouldn’t CATHOLICS be the people I discuss/argue with about them?

Would you prefer that I NOT look things up, but rather let Jack Chick, et al, educate me about Catholic thought?

But note, you specifically said the Catholics that were “arguing” with you about it, on the other thread.

Quote:
(color added)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dianaiad

As to latae sententaie…I have a sneaking suspicion that I understand it better than most of the posters who were arguing with me about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dianaiad
Please notice, though, that I am discussing this issue with CATHOLICS. I’m not going out and attempting to ‘educate’ non-Catholics about it.

Yep. Simple debate is generally more civil…and debate focuses upon what is being written rather than upon who is writing it. It was obvious to me, from what was written, that the Catholics who were on the other side didn’t care about what I wrote–they only care that I’m the one who wrote it.

It was sometimes frustrating. I felt like I said 'look, the sky is blue!" and what I got back was “NO, you Mormon anti-Catholic bigot, the sky really is BLUE!”

That argument doesn’t work, this is a public forum and there are many observers from all sorts of religions.

It is not exclusively between you and the Catholics you are arguing with.

Really? Could you show me where I ‘argued’ about it with someone who was NOT Catholic?