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
Anyway I have no more time to waste on you Slarti. If you’d like to declare victory then please do and have done with it.
If you wanted to address my reasoning then do so but I won’t waste anymore time on this back and forth.
Maybe you should try to express yourself in a more clear, rational way.
***************************
Unbelievable.
Out of the two of us, I’m the only one expressing their opinion in clear, easy to understand unshrouded terms. You write lengthy exposes to try and conceal the fact that you cannot address simple logic.
My answers are the same they’ve been for 3 days, clear, one or two paragraph opinions without a bunch of rigmarole to drape them in.
Calling me irrational when it is you who has demanded that I constantly repeat the same answers over and over until you’re able to grasp them, and demanding that I frame my opinions either around Epicurus’ logic or refute each of his opinions is what’s irrational.
Yea liar 🙂
If you knew that kicking him out would result in his death? Yes.
***************************************************************
Really?
Suppose he doesn’t die in a car accident. Suppose he just drinks himself to ruin?
You’re responsible for a grown mans actions?
Or is putting your son out on his own the only way to really help him? Either “make it or break it”.
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 5:00 pm
goneville posted:
What? Now I have to argue the Catholic concept of “original sin”?
No, just explain to me why letting an infant (that god had the power to save) die is not a malevolent act.
When did that come into the picture?
Just now, when I raised the issue. Although Mespo brought it up earlier (you know, when you were to busy foaming at the mouth to notice).
Why should I have to argue the concept of original sin?
Do you not understand the concept of a ‘question’? I asked you if your god held this child guilt of original sin – it’s a pretty straightforward question and it doesn’t presume that the answer is ‘yes’.
****************************************
When “I” brought it up?
I never once mentioned original sin, so go find the post where I did before lying some more.
Thanks Bdaman but when I need a rodeo clown I’ll let you know.
Repeat after me,
Bdaman, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
goneville posted:
p.s. Regarding your comment on the ‘birther’ thread: omnipresent means everywhere at once. I think you meant omniscient.
Searching,
Sounds good, where’s your place?
Byron,
I believe that Zeus would be a malevolent god – he has the power to prevent evil, he just doesn’t want to. And I’d advise against calling him a pussy – he’s a smitin’ god!
Hey man How much of a hit do you want me to take. Sometimes I take so many I feel like wow, I should share some of this but you know, you never know when you are going to run out.
I like the fall, too bad the deer season and harvest come about the same time. Can anyone tell me what the limit is on plants? I get three the other day. They are about 6 feet tall. Thick to. Lotta, Lotta Buds. I have a freezer full.
goneville-n-keys 1, April 14, 2010 at 4:26 pm
What is the lesson to be learned by the rest of us from the fate of this child? Your god could have prevented this child’s death, but did not. Absent a reason for doing so, this sounds pretty malevolent to me.
************************************************
And again.
If your grown child dies in a drunken automobile accident in another state he moved to when you booted him out at 21, does that make you malevolent?
Instead of showing off your PHD in math, how about responding to the actual responses I gave you?
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 4:26 pm
goneville,
I did respond:
***************************
I was addressing comment, I didn’t say you didn’t respond.
Once again, try a little patience in letting me respond to your long winded nonsense.
Hey man why don’t you all just hook up over to my place and we can smoke a little weed and just chill. Maybe some chick’s will come over and we can all get naked and then feel even better.
What is the lesson to be learned by the rest of us from the fate of this child? Your god could have prevented this child’s death, but did not. Absent a reason for doing so, this sounds pretty malevolent to me.
************************************************
If your grown child dies in a drunken automobile accident in another state he moved to when you booted him out at 21, does that make you malevolent?
goneville,
I did respond:
Searching,
Hit the good shit once for me. (I need it after arguing with goneville…)
“Now, as to your absentee landlord god who’s allowing evil to teach his children, I would like to know what, exactly, is learned by the child born on Christmas 2004 who died the next day when a wall of water destroyed his village? What happens to the soul of this child? Does your god judge this child guilty of ‘original sin’?”
*****************************************
What? Now I have to argue the Catholic concept of “original sin”?
When did that come into the picture? Why should I have to argue the concept of original sin? I’m not a catholic so why do I have to defend their doctrine?
Seems to me you got burned somewhere. Somewhere someone religious really chapped your hide, and now you’re angry and want to project all of your emotional trauma over some religious persecution you feel you endured onto anyone who won’t chant in mindless unison with you that there is no god.
Well sorry, but I don’t need to defend a catholic doctrine that has nothing to do with the concept. That’s a completely different discussion about the nature of the afterlife as seen through the eyes of the thousands of different religions that dot the planet. And interesting discussion to be sure but not one that I would enter into with someone who requires I rewrite my same comments 300 times over a period of several days prior to acknowledging them.
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm
goneville,
Just to be clear, when I refer to ‘your’ god, I am referring to the god you are advocating for, not alleging anything about your personal beliefs, so please don’t get your panties in a bunch about that.
Again, to be clear, Epicurus (and Gyges and me) have not been advocating or denying any particular god – the quote from Eipcurus proposes a THEOREM about god(s). This is a distinction that you don’t seem to understand, so I’ll try to illustrate it below.
*********************************************
Oh for petes sake get over it.
I GOT it. About 2 days ago when it was asked.
So stop lying and stop trying to drag this stupidity out further than it needs to go. Stop pretending that I did not address the “theorem” by offering an alternative logic to the “theorem”.
I “got it” the day it was presented to me and that’s why I responded with an alternative theorem.
So stop lying.
Either address the alternative logic I presented 3 days ago (and have re-presented for YOUR benefit over a dozen times now), or call it quits like Gyges did.
I’m not going to sit here arguing ad infinitum with you about what Gyges was “trying to say”. I got what he said. I don’t need your two cents worth there. If you want to refute the logic I introduced, then do so.
But enough of your mindless, endless nonsensical fixation with trying to pigeon hole me into adopting a position I do not hold.
I am searching for a Higher Power. I hate it when I get bad weed, I feel like what is the use. Then I get some really good shit and well you know the rest. It is like I can see God. We Connect, We are One. Then for some reason or another I can’t see or feel God no more.
Has anyone else felt like this before. This is a cool site man, God, Weed and We are one. I feel like such a connection.
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm
goneville,
Just to be clear, when I refer to ‘your’ god, I am referring to the god you are advocating for, not alleging anything about your personal beliefs, so please don’t get your panties in a bunch about that.
***********************************
Prior to getting your panties in a knot, try reading who the comment was too, ok?
Or are you now confessing to being Byron?
GONEVILLE:
I understood your analogy and I am not an atheist. Why do you need to be pigeon holed? You could just as well be arguing the merits of brown eggs vs. white eggs you don’t need to even bring God into the argument. Same with Epicurus since he wasn’t a Christian and was exposed to Zeus and his posse. So Zeus is an unwilling pussy god, what does that have to do with the Christian God?
Not a thing as far as I can see, you could have told Gyges that Epicurus’s god(s) were elephants or turtles for that matter.
goneville,
Just to be clear, when I refer to ‘your’ god, I am referring to the god you are advocating for, not alleging anything about your personal beliefs, so please don’t get your panties in a bunch about that.
Again, to be clear, Epicurus (and Gyges and me) have not been advocating or denying any particular god – the quote from Eipcurus proposes a THEOREM about god(s). This is a distinction that you don’t seem to understand, so I’ll try to illustrate it below.
Now, as to your absentee landlord god who’s allowing evil to teach his children, I would like to know what, exactly, is learned by the child born on Christmas 2004 who died the next day when a wall of water destroyed his village? What happens to the soul of this child? Does your god judge this child guilty of ‘original sin’? What is the lesson to be learned by the rest of us from the fate of this child? Your god could have prevented this child’s death, but did not. Absent a reason for doing so, this sounds pretty malevolent to me.
To clear up what I mean about theorems (and show how your 4+4=89 analogy is flawed), I will illustrate using a theorem from geometry (where the concept of proof is much stronger than philosophy) that I found lying around (just another intellectual construct from an ancient greek):
If you have a right triangle ABC with side lengths a, b, c (the side opposite vertex A is length a, etc.) and if the angle at vertex C is a right angle, then a, b, and c satisfy the relationship: a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
Now, as a mathematical theorem this is either true or false. (Buddha, I see you and your friend Godel lurking over there and I’m asking you to please stay out of this – and have Achilles keep the turtle on a leash…) If I assert that this theorem is true, I am not forcing you to agree that all triangles are right triangles or that I’m not letting you discuss circles or squares – I’m just presenting a logical statement that if we happen to be talking about right triangles the given relationship is true.
When this theorem is offered in a debate, you can do several things (but saying, ‘You are forcing me to use Pythagorus’ triangles instead of my own’ isn’t one of them – not if you want to make a rational argument, anyway). You may:
Say ‘But we’re talking about circles, not triangles so your theorem doesn’t apply.’
Which I will answer by drawing a unit circle with radius and perpendicular and lecture you about trigonometry until your ears bleed.
Say ‘Imagine a triangle with its vertex at the north pole with 2 sides that are lines of longitude and one side that is a line of latitude – that’s a counter-example!’
Which I will answer by saying that we were talking about Euclidean geometry and in that case the the theorem is true (and I can prove it…).
Or you can accept the theorem as true and allow me to use its conclusions whenever the hypotheses are satisfied.
Going back to Epicurus’ ‘theorem’, since his statement is about theology rather than mathematics there is no proof (in the ‘undeniably true’ sense of the word), so attacking the logical statements that comprise the theorem is valid (like saying that a god able but unwilling to prevent evil is not malevolent). You have given an argument for this. Now I have replied (the first time that I’ve made any reply to your arguments). Stop making infantile accusations about how everyone is putting you into positions that you didn’t take and answer my reply. That’s how rational debate works – isn’t that what you said you wanted?
Bdaman,
You’re a lean, mean, fightin machine!
Is this really the best this “intellectual” blog has to offer?
Perhaps I was a bit hasty in presuming to put down stakes here.