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
I was asked to either declare that there is no God because he does not interfere with human events to stop “evil”, .. or accept one of Epicurus’ positions and declare God to be malevolent, or a pussy.
THOSE were the “choices” I was given to select among.
Then Gyges, and Slarti sat back and demanded I pick one of their descriptions.
That is nonsense. Sheer and utter nonsense.
So, I offered an alternative opinion. One that was presented by Jesus in the New Testament, which places the onus for the evil we commit back on our own heads.
But Gyges didn’t like that. Probably because he couldn’t refute it. So, he stormed off and in came Slarti who in turn restated his demands and who when I demonstrated that I had already given my answer, called me ignorant and paraded his PHD in Math to me.
And Slarti is still trying to sell that argument, forcing me to either declare there is no God, or call him malevolent or a pussy.
What sort of choice is that?
The choice only a child, (or apparently an atheist) would offer.
Its no choice at all. And one you just proved you would not accept, as you would not be pigeon holed into having to defend an answer you do not believe is true.
To intentionally stack the deck and demand your opponent either instantly concede your position, or select from one of the other predefined positions he has selected for you is ludicrous.
So I did like you. I presented an alternative position to the options you gave me that made more sense. So people are welcome to refute the alternative position.
But they are not welcome to tell me I can’t make the position, or have to make theirs.
I don’t think you can reconcile faith and reason no matter how hard you try.
*********************************************
So stop pretending that I ever tried to do any such thing.
I did not.
Its a complete lie.
Nothing more.
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 9:44 pm
4+4 is always 8 so I would not choose any of what you offered.
**********************************
Ahh but there’s the rub.
You’re not being GIVEN the option to choose any other options.
Because the analogy analogizes Slarti’s rules for me.
I wasn’t GIVEN an option to choose an alternative position.
I had to pick from one of the 3 positions “prepared for me”.
Are we learning yet?
You have as much faith God exists as I have in 4+4 = 8
***********************************
Ok, enough. Your bluff is called.
Point to the statement where I said I have “faith that God exists”.
I’ll be waiting for that.
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 9:44 pm
goneville:
the problem is that you disagree with Epicurus because you believe and he doesn’t. So you think 4+4 = 89 rather than 8.
******************************************
Wrong. 4+4 is an analogy, it is not meant to be interpreted literally.
The analogy does not rely on whether or not 4+4 = 8, because the analogy analogizes opinions. Not facts.
We’re not discussing a quantitative determinable sum. We’re discussing theological opinions. So the sum in the analogy is moot. It doesn’t matter what 4+4 equals, because there is no determinable sum here.
As for my “believing” how many times does a person have to state that they have no particular “beliefs” to assert prior to people like you ceasing to falsely claim they do?
It seems that you cannot argue against a theological position that does not refute the existence of God along with you, without first defining your opponent as a “believer”.
This shows how utterly weak your argument is.
You can’t make it, without first misrepresenting your opponent.
Why you got to argue with somebody who says 4 + 4 = 89
The guy has a PHD and is a mathematician, if he says 4 + 4 = 89 you should believe him, hello
Lighten up Frances
Thats me 🙂
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Well girlfriend, I guess he won’t be asking you to the prom either
*********************************
So what are you supposed to be, the rodeo clown?
Until then, we’ve got nothing left to say to each other.
Well girlfriend, I guess he won’t be asking you to the prom either 🙂
Yes.
Of course I cannot convince a man who believes 4 + 4 = 89, that it does not equal 85, 77 or 1. Because his calculator is giving him different numbers than mine.
All I can do is provide him what my calculator shows me, and that is 4 plus 4, in Base10 mathematics, equals 8.
But he’s saying “oh no, you have to answer me using one of the 3 answers I gave you to work with”.
And that’s utter nonsense. For all his “logic”, this concept has eluded him for more than a day.
so you think 4+4 = 8 rather than 89
goneville:
the problem is that you disagree with Epicurus because you believe and he doesn’t. So you think 4+4 = 89 rather than 8.
4+4 is always 8 so I would not choose any of what you offered. You have as much faith God exists as I have in 4+4 = 8. Although I know through reason that 4+4 = 8 while one needs faith to accept the existence of God. Didn’t Aquinas and others face this dilemma about 900 years ago? That led to the Enlightenment. I don’t think you can reconcile faith and reason no matter how hard you try.
See the question though Byron? See the problem?
You cannot load a question any more than that.
I’m asking you to accept that 4+4 = 89.
If you refuse to accept my conclusions, then you must select your opposing argument from one of the 3 answers I’ve given you to refute me with.
You can accept 4+4 = 77
You can accept 4+4 = 85
Or you can accept 4+4 = 1.
But you CANNOT offer me any other alternatives. You cannot offer me any other possible sums for these 2 factors.
If you don’t accept 4 + 4 = 89, then you must prove to me how 4 + 4 = either 77, 85, or 1.
Those are the parameters I’ve defined for you to work with.
And that is how Slarti is demanding I respond.
Either accept a statement by Gyges that I don’t necessarily agree with, i.e there is no God, or define that God by the tightly knit parameters that HE outlines for me.
You cannot stack the deck any higher than that.
You cannot load a question any more than that.
goneville:
“Yea, I saw Rainman.”
that was funny 🙂
Here’s how it works.
Ready?
I say 4 + 4 = 89
Now, if you wish to disagree with me, …then you need to chose from one of the 3 answers below.
1. 4 + 4 = 77
2. 4 + 4 = 85
3. 4 + 4 = 1
There. Now you have 3 options.
You can either agree with me that 4 plus 4 equals 89.
Or you can select from one of the 3 answers, I’ve provided for you.
Which answer will you chose Byron?
Please tell me whether you agree with me that 4+4=89, or if not, then tell me which one of the 3 answers I’ve provided for you, that you want to go with.
And there’s nothing logical in demanding that in order to offer a possible explanation as to why God might not interfere to prevent evil, one must first refute every possible opinion on the subject.
Such a juvenile argument would first demand I must prove there is a God in order to prove the opinions of a given philosopher are false, in order to offer an alternative.
That nonsense presupposes that I had stated there was a God, and made claims as to his attributes based on some belief system I supposedly held.
I made it clear from the onset that I had no God in this fight, and had no particular axe to grind other than to offer an alternative opinion based on what Jesus taught in the New Testament.
So no. That isn’t logic.
It is simply the oldest trick in the book.
Make a claim (God cannot exist because he does not prevent evil) and then demand that people either agree with you, ….or if they disagree with you then YOU get to define a very limited set of arguments for them to disagree with you on.
Ones you yourself have already discredited.
I explained this last night.
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 9:18 pm
goneville:
mathematicians sometimes get caught up in logic, it’s hard to deal with them because of it.
*******************************
Yea, I saw Rainman.
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 9:08 pm
goneville,
Thanks, I’ll address your posts in a while…
********************************************
Don’t bother.
I’ve wasted all the time I’m going to waste on your inane nonsense.
You ask me to reprint the same arguments I’ve reprinted repeatedly for you, then declare I can only respond within the confines of Epicurus’s limited opinions.
That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, and precludes any of my opinions, or OTHER opinions given by OTHER people which differ.
That is ignorance so stupid as I cannot even refute it because the person making it hasn’t demonstrated the capacity to comprehend its monumental stupidity, in over 24 hours.
I have no interest in hearing any logic from someone who would make such an asinine position as to dictate that I cannot offer differing opinions without first refuting every possible opinion on the board.
When you RETRACT that stupid demand you’ve been making all night, then come talk to me about my opinions.
The ones you say I cannot have.
Until then, we’ve got nothing left to say to each other.
goneville:
mathematicians sometimes get caught up in logic, it’s hard to deal with them because of it.