The Connecticut Catholic bishops have issued a dire warning to the faithful that a proposal to lift the statute of limitations for victims of Church abuse to sue would threaten their very religion, putting “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” .
The Bishops warned that the right to sue “would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities.”
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to sue the Church.
The bill has some novel provisions. For example, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused. That itself raises some questions about the disparate treatment given victims. I have never seen such a provision in legislation.
For the full story, click here
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 9:04 pm
No, I have repeatedly said that one of your options is to refute his logical statements
*********************************************
Here we go again.
You ask me to reprint my arguments, then go right back to demanding I frame my arguments by the limited opinions of Epicurus.
How is that NOT dictating his is the ONLY logic???
You’re saying I cannot introduce ALTERNATIVE possibilities.
That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
goneville,
Thanks, I’ll address your posts in a while…
And here, this one back by popular demand was first printed yesterday afternoon at around 2 PM.
**********************************************************
How is he malevolent? By permitting free will for all?
By your standards only those who’s will he approves of should have free will. Also you are misrepresenting his non interference in our affairs as malevolent interference, which it is not.
Did you ever watch Star Trek? Ever a fan? I am. Big fan actually. Ever hear of something they called the “Prime Directive”?
The Prime Directive states that they are prohibited from interfering in the development or free agency of another lesser developed species. The Prime Directive often required that Kirk, Picard, Janeway, and Archer watch some bad thing happen without being able to interfere.
Did that make them “malevolent”?
That you want a God who controls others to keep bad things from happening is fine. That’s your concept of a God. And you’re free to believe that concept if that’s how you see it. Its an archaic concept to be sure, one shared by early authors of the Hebrew bible, but one that did not transpose into the New Testament.
If you believe the New Testament, then God permitted his own Son to be beaten mercilessly, then nailed to a tree post between his wrist and ankle bones to rot and die like a piece of meat on a stick. Same thing happened to his Apostles. In fact its rumored St Peter was crucified upside down.
He also permitted Nero to illuminate his gardens while impaling Christians on stakes, covering them with a form of potash and lighting them on fire. Alive.
In fact, even in the Hebrew bible, God permitted Cain to kill Abel, supposedly the first murder.
So to presume that God interferes with mans free will to do evil to his fellow man is to not know the bible, or the doctrines handed down over the ages. You’re free to believe in a white bearded kindly old Santa Clause gentlemen in the sky who will beam down whenever there’s trouble if you like. That’s your right.
But insisting others believe the same so that you can discredit it is unfair.
Goneville said:
“Your presumption assumes that the ONLY possible reasoning is the reasoning of Epicurus.”
No, I have repeatedly said that one of your options is to refute his logical statements. You seem to be arguing that the Christian God is able to prevent evil but unwilling to prevent evil and that this does not make him malevolent. (Yes, I’m just restating your position – I want to make sure that we’re on the same page.) So you are taking the option of disputing one of Epicurus’s logical statements (that able but not willing to prevent evil implies malevolence). I’ve got to take a break for a couple of hours – when I come back I’ll address any arguments you make.
Here you go.
Back for the 10th straight time by popular demand.
Hope you actually take the time to read it this time prior to pretending I never said any of it.
**************************************************
A “morally good god” as defined by who? Without delving into this one because of the obvious “old white man in the sky” doctrine that reduces the believer to the status of an ignorant child, I will address the “morally neutral watchmaker” type of god you dictate that people believe in (so you can refute it).
Your declaration that this God who does not directly interfere with the affairs of humans presumes that doing so makes him “morally neutral”. Such an assumption elevates you to the status of a god yourself, dictating morality for the very god you don’t believe in. How is he “morally neutral”?
You say because he doesn’t stop things he has the power to stop, that he is morally neutral. Really? Some questions then.
How much roughly do you earn per year? 100k? 200k? More (you lucky guy you)? How much of your income do you spend on the poor? Have you ever passed a homeless person without giving them money? Have you ever walked past a Salvation Army bell ringer without dropping a coin in the pot, even though you have money? Are you currently in Africa, Haiti, The Congo, or elsewhere helping the starving, sick and dying?
No? Really?
You have money. You can buy a plane ticket. You could quit your job, sell your house and give it all to the poor, keeping only enough for yourself and your family to exist on a meager living.
So why don’t you? Are you “morally neutral” to the suffering of others? I wouldn’t think so, you seem like a decent fellow. So I don’t think I’d consider you morally neutral, yet no matter how many of the scenarios I presented that you can refute on circumstance, I am confident you are not doing “all you can do” to help others. I am confident of that. Some people do. Some people dedicate their lives, talents and resources to working with the poor. Mother Teresa was such an individual. Yet others not following her example are not necessarily ‘morally neutral’.
Another question. Do you have any kids? If so, have you ever let your kids do something that you knew would likely end in ruin? I have. Lots of parents have. Let your kid quit school to take that job that you know won’t work out. Let him drive that dilapidated old jalopy even though you know it could break down at any time? How about motorcycles? Do you let your kids ride motorcycles? How about bicycles? Do you have any idea how many kids are seriously injured on bicycles each and every day? Even those wearing the little helmets? How about joining the army? Travel to Europe or overseas? Surf? Skydive? Rock climb? Wrestle? How about cheerleading? Do you let your daughter cheerlead? Do you have any idea how many kids get seriously injured, even paralyzed from cheerleading falls? How about smoking cigarettes? Hanging with a friend you know is no good? Climbing on that jungle jim? Climbing a tree? Any of those or the million more things that parents let their children do, even though they know it could cause irreparable harm.
Now of course I don’t need an answer from you on all these things. I’m sure you don’t let your kid do “all” of these things. But I bet you let your kids do one of them. Or things similar.
So the question is why. Why would you let your kids place themselves purposefully in a dangerous situation? Are you “morally neutral” about your kids? Of course not.
You let them do it for the “experience”. To learn. Because in life we as parents know that sometimes the best way to love our kids, is to let them live and learn for themselves. Sure we take precautions when we can but more often than not we look the other way and let the dice roll where they may. Because they have to be able to learn to choose right from wrong, smart from dumb, and good from evil on their own. If we choose it for them, then when they are no longer under our controlling thumb, they’ll not have the skills to make the decisions for themselves.
We can show them. We can lecture them. But ultimately we must let them learn for themselves. And that’s perhaps one of the hardest parts of being a parent.
So my response to you is no. I don’t see a God who permits free will for his creations, children etc, as “morally neutral”. I would see such a God as like a parent, permitting their kid to do something they’ve repeatedly told them not to do, because they realize at one point the kid is going to have to learn for themselves.
A god not worthy of worship (or not worthy of the title ‘God’).
*********************************
Well that presumes that your understanding is greater than his.
I demonstrated some very logical scenarios from the beginning of the argument. I just reprinted them for you today (and you’re still asking me to reprint them, again cementing the fact that you don’t bother to read anything I write before refuting it.
Makes it hard when I have to keep reprinting my same positions over and over and over before you’ll bother to read them.
Guess it helps set me up for cheap shots like Bdamans about “repetitiveness”.
Ok. I’ll reprint them again.
(it doesn’t matter that he proposed it hundreds of years before Christ, if his logic is valid it must be addressed and if it isn’t it must be refuted)
*****************************************
Or an alternative argument posed.
Which I posed.
Your presumption assumes that Epicurus is the all knowing seer of the universe, and no other logic can possibly exist other than his.
Your presumption assumes that the ONLY possible reasoning is the reasoning of Epicurus.
It is not.
And I showed you that.
You have made a good start at answering this here and I would ask you to please continue.
********************************
Wrong. You are trying to pretend you are “dragging” these answers out of me.
These answers are the same answers I provided yesterday to Gyges, and you when you asked.
You’re just finally taking the time to actually READ them.
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 8:45 pm
goneville,
If God is NOT ABLE to prevent evil even though he is WILLING to prevent evil then he is not omnipotent. This statement assumes that he would chooses to act but he can’t.
****************************************
Slarti, I am trying as fast as I can to respond to your laundry list of questions but if you need to give me a chance to answer them prior to tossing more on the pile, ok?
I read your words, but you were unwilling to address the dilemma that Epicurus posed to the theist (it doesn’t matter that he proposed it hundreds of years before Christ, if his logic is valid it must be addressed and if it isn’t it must be refuted). You have made a good start at answering this here and I would ask you to please continue.
***************************************
What? I did address it. I showed how it was NOT a dilemma as there was another opinion beyond that of the limited and narrow one provided by Epicurus.
The one provided by Jesus.
Which part of that did you not understand?
….oh yea right. Didn’t bother to “read”.
goneville,
If God is NOT ABLE to prevent evil even though he is WILLING to prevent evil then he is not omnipotent. This statement assumes that he would chooses to act but he can’t.
I’m trying to do things systematically (I was trained as a mathematician),
***********************************
Yes I know. You paraded your PHD to me last night, remember?
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 8:34 pm
goneville,
Look, if you want to have a productive debate then we need to systematically address these questions which is what I’m trying to do.
***************************************
And I am systematically trying to answer them if you’d give me a chance too and actually address my responses instead of what looks like AGAIN pretending you don’t see them.
Here’s another answer.
******************************************
“But if God is not able to prevent evil then his power has limits, hence he is not omnipotent by definition.”
****************************************************
Not necessarily. Because he “chooses” to not do something doesn’t mean he “can’t”.
You’re confusing choose with can’t.
I’ve been trying to help you understand Gyges position and why he left the argument.
*************************************************
Wouldn’t that presume that you first “knew something” about my positions prior to making the presumption that I “didn’t understand” Gyges?
Your last few comments prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had NO CLUE what I wrote, and had not bothered to take the time to ready any of it.
So please. Given the utter and sheer confusion and mess you made out of a simple discussion that you didn’t even bother to read prior to “explaining” to me, the last one I’d want “explaining” someone else position to me is you.
I understood Gyges position fine, which is why I responded to it in such clear and unmistakable terms.
So just know this.
When I need “your” help understanding something, I’ll go ahead and just kill myself.
goneville,
Look, if you want to have a productive debate then we need to systematically address these questions which is what I’m trying to do. This then gives us a foundation for further discussion. If you don’t want to engage in debate, you could have saved us both a lot of time by just saying so (or say so now and I’ll drop it).
goneville,
I never tried to refute any of your arguments on this thread, I merely tried to explain the logical dilemma that Gyges (Epicurus, really) had posed. If I was trying to refute what you had said, I would have gone through your post point-by-point and addressed all of them (as I have done repeatedly on many threads).
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Okay, God is not willing to prevent evil.
*************************************************************
No. Not “okay”.
Don’t act like I’m just stating this now like you dragged it out of me or something.
I REPEATEDLY stated this YESTERDAY. MANY TIMES.
Here. At 1:49 in the AFTERNOON, yesterday, where I began clearly making this case.
**********************************************
goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“the quote presumes that God “wants” to prevent evil.”
**********************************************
I based my ENTIRE argument on this ONE CONCEPT.
So thank you.
Thank you for showing again that you did not bother to read one single word I wrote yesterday, prior to sticking your nose into it.
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Now we’re getting somewhere.
goneville posted:
Is god able to prevent evil?
Who’s God? The Christian God? Or the God of Epicurus?
Your God (or whatever god you wish to argue for).
*****************************************************
Thank you!
Finally after 24 hours you actually admit it that you have never bothered to read ANY OF my positions prior to your nonsensical attacks on them last night.
Slarti, now listen good, ok?
I made it clear repeatedly last night, that I do not have a God in this fight. I made it perfectly clear that I am not, nor would I ever DARE to pretend to try to convince someone else of the existence, or nature of a God. Any God.
I made it perfectly clear that I was simply correcting the record with regards to the Christian God as taught by Jesus, in the New Testament.
So thank you.
Thank you for confirming that you never bothered to read nor understand any of my comments prior to attempting to refute them.
I’m just given you a hard time goneville, If you remember I was the first to defend you the first time religion was brought up. In fact Mike Spindell gave you lots of compliments.
It is impossible unless you know the context. Are we talking malevolent pussy or unwilling pussy?
LOLROTFATSIMP
Laughing out loud rolling on the floor about to shit in my pants 🙂