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
goneville,
I’m going to make a reply to your questions about science on the other thread and I’ll be putting together a little logic seminar for you here. I will attempt to do all of this as warmly as possible. (Although some sarcasm may be unavoidable ;-))
mespo727272 1, April 12, 2010 at 11:22 pm
goneville:
“Your logic presupposes that in order to be a divine creator and protector of the universe, one must also be your hand servant and personal bodyguard.”
******************
No, those are actually His words:
Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you: and, see, I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Amen.
~Matthew 28:20
But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.
~Luke 21:14-5
And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, ‘If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.’
~Mark 9:35
*****************************************
These are pretty easy to dismiss.
1. Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you: and, see, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.
****************************************
A. He said he was “with you”.
He doesn’t say he’ll be your personal bodyguard and protect you from all harm.
****************************************
2. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.
***************************************
B. This one refutes itself.
He says he will give you “words of wisdom”.
He doesn’t say anything about flood insurance.
He says your words will not be able to be resisted, in other words, “no man can debate you”. lol (lil joke there)
***************************************
3. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, ‘If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.’
**************************************
C. Yea, he tells them that THEY have to be each others servants in life and he proceeds to explain that by washing their feet.
He doesn’t say anything about taking care of their every need.
############
On a side note, if you want some help I can find you some much better passages with which to make your case, lol. Seriously there are better ones.
goneville:
No problem. When bullets fly, they always seem to be flying at you.
mespo727272 1, April 12, 2010 at 11:24 pm
goneville:
No one said you were posturing or showing off. It was simply an observation about argumentation when the issue is never in doubt.
****************************
Cool, sorry I must have misread that.
Slartibartfast 1, April 12, 2010 at 10:39 pm
goneville,
When presented a logical statement, one may:
(a) Accept the statement as true.
(b) Assert the statement as false.
(c) Deny the applicability of logic
or
(d) Ignore it.
**********************************
Slarty, your statement presupposes that the quote Gyges quoted was a position he was making.
It was not.
Gyges was presenting that as an opposing doctrine, 3 to be exact.
Gyges indicated he didn’t believe in a God, or at least either of those three.
See?
*************************************
Gyges 1, April 12, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Gone,
I know you probably won’t believe this, but I don’t care what sort of god you believe in. Epicurus was the one trying to convince you, not me.
************************
And again, here.
***********************
Gyges 1, April 12, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“I don’t believe there is a god, period, so why would I advocate one type of (in my view) nonexistent being over another? ”
*************************************************
He was asking me to select one of the three presumptions of Epicurus, and defend it.
He wasn’t making the point.
He doesn’t believe there is a God.
He said so above, see?
He wasn’t making the argument therefore there is no need for me to “refute it”.
Your presumption is based on a false understanding of the discussion.
goneville:
No one said you were posturing or showing off. It was simply an observation about argumentation when the issue is never in doubt.
goneville:
“Your logic presupposes that in order to be a divine creator and protector of the universe, one must also be your hand servant and personal bodyguard.”
******************
No, those are actually His words:
Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you: and, see, I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Amen.
~Matthew 28:20
But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.
~Luke 21:14-5
And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, ‘If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.’
~Mark 9:35
mespo727272 1, April 12, 2010 at 10:42 pm
I agree with Mr. Lippman, but I suspect he implicitly meant on issues upon which reasonable men (and ladies) can differ. When they can’t, its not thinking going on, just posturing and showing off.
*********************************
I’m trying to answer the questions you are posing to me. How does that constitute posturing or “showing off”?
I am answering your questions as frankly and honestly as I can, and I’m sorry you don’t like the answers so feel free to refute them if you can.
Stooping to insults however is routinely a sign that you cannot.
Lets just focus on the issues please. Thanks.
mespo727272 1, April 12, 2010 at 10:39 pm
“Simply stated, I have not laid claim to being the divine Creator and protector of the universe.”
***********************
Your logic presupposes that in order to be a divine creator and protector of the universe, one must also be your hand servant and personal bodyguard.
Slartibartfast 1, April 12, 2010 at 10:39 pm
“Seeing your lack of understanding of simple logic here makes your misunderstanding of science on another thread more understandable, understand? I don’t think that many people on this site will let you get away with abusing logic”
***************************************
Slarti, please. No need to degrade me simply for responding to the challenges presented to me. I’m trying to be accommodating here and I’m putting myself out here so if you can’t have empathy then some of that human compassion would be appreciated.
I’m just answering your questions.
Now, as to your statements.
My misunderstanding of science?
M-Theory is not part of science?
The scientists working on M-Theory are not scientists?
You claimed science is only an understanding of this universe and if that is your limited view of science that is your right. But it doesn’t make M-Theory and dimensional theories non science.
But feel free to explain how it does, or how those are things in “this” universe.
Also please explain how the science of “parallel universes” deals with “this” universe.
I’ll be waiting for your warm response, lol.
AY:
“When all men think alike, no one thinks very much.”
~Walter Lippman
*****************
I agree with Mr. Lippman, but I suspect he implicitly meant on issues upon which reasonable men (and ladies) can differ. When they can’t, its not thinking going on, just posturing and showing off.
goneville:
You haven’t?
Well why not?
*****************
Simply stated, I have not laid claim to being the divine Creator and protector of the universe. Someone you worship has, and He gets all the baggage that comes with that title, including acting the role.
goneville,
When presented a logical statement, one may:
(a) Accept the statement as true.
(b) Assert the statement as false.
(c) Deny the applicability of logic
or
(d) Ignore it.
The last two could be considered illogical. Seeing your lack of understanding of simple logic here makes your misunderstanding of science on another thread more understandable, understand? I don’t think that many people on this site will let you get away with abusing logic…
mespo, Buddha, et al.
“When all men think alike, no one thinks very much.”
~Walter Lippman
Winner of two well earned Nobel peace prizes.
If you so much as purchase a Rolex over a Timex, then you’ve wasted funds that could have helped relieve the suffering of another human being.
Which by yours or at least Gyges reasoning, makes you both malevolent.
mespo727272 1, April 12, 2010 at 10:15 pm
goneville:
No emotion in my example
****************
Sure it was. That’s all it was. You present some horrific tragedy and try to stir emotions of empathy or ire.
“What sort of God permits this!” or “What sort of God permits that to happen!”. Its the oldest atheist argument in the world, and one that relies on emotions to exist. And if you think not, then answer this.
Have you sold all your positions and donated it to the poor?
Are you currently blogging from Haiti, where you’re helping with your wealth, influence and sweat to save lives and relieve suffering?
I mean the children, think of the children.
Have you moved into a 400 dollar a month basement apartment, and existed on a diet of Ramen noodles and fish so as to give all of your income above the necessary life sustenance, to the help these foundering waifs?
You haven’t?
Well why not?
What sort of benevolent human being exists who has the power to relieve so much suffering, but does not?
Slartibartfast 1, April 12, 2010 at 10:05 pm
“goneville,
Gyges put Epicurus’ logic out there – it is thus incumbent on you to either accept his logic or refute it. ”
***********************************
lol, so its incumbent on me to refute whatever philosophical concepts someone throws out there? What’s that like an assignment or something? lol
No. I don’t think I need to refute someone else’s concepts of God. Doing so would indicate that I had a sure knowledge of what God was or was not, a position several here seem to want to pigeonhole me into. I do not. I haven’t seen him. No burning bushes appeared in my office today. And I don’t know anyone who I believe has had lunch with him lately.
So no.
I don’t have to “refute” Epicurus.
Epicurus presented three possible descriptions of the nature of God.
I simply suggested a fourth. The one Jesus presents in the New Testament.
goneville:
“This is a common position of atheists. Find the worst tragedies you can think of and then appeal to emotion to make the case.
However the argument falls flat as soon as one accepts the concept of free will and random occurrence.”
*************
No emotion in my example, just a question about suffering inflicted upon innocents that no religion can answer because,as Epicurus’ paradox amply proves, one cannot be both all-power and compassionate and permit suffering.
There is no free will in a natural disaster by definition. One cannot accept random occurrence in the face of an omniscient, omnipotent god who directs the natural world. Only a skeptic can accept randomness in the universe. The religionist must conclude an event is either God’s will or it isn’t. If it is, the system of religion paying homage to the all-knowing, all-powerful, compassionate deity works. If it isn’t His will, god cannot be omnipotent since the act occurs outside of his power and authority. Sorry, but you don’t get it both ways. That’s called non-falsifiability–which is all Epicurus was trying to say.
goneville,
Gyges put Epicurus’ logic out there – it is thus incumbent on you to either accept his logic or refute it. To do otherwise would be illogical. (Just channelling Mr. Spock for a second there…)
“”Life is difficult. This is a great truth, one of the greatest truths. It is a great truth because once we truly see this truth, we transcend it.
Once we truly know that life is difficult, once we truly understand and accept it, then life is no longer difficult. Because once it is accepted, the fact that life is difficult no longer matters.”
M. Scott Peck
“The Road Less Traveled”