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
Then see what he has to say. Then we can argue about which one of us is insane.
************************************
I have better things to do than waste my time arguing with someone who doesn’t seem to understand the lunacy of their arguments.
And I did not call you insane. I called your argument insane. And it is.
Don’t hide behind the notion of waiting for Gyges to address your own words. I’m dealing with your words, not his right now.
And you are brazenly sitting here claiming that in order to debate someone, I have to first permit them to pigeonhole my positions for me into something I do not believe.
In order to debate, you get to either demand I agree with you, or pick 3 wrong answers and give them to me.
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
goneville,
Let me make this easy for you.
Do you accept the 4 logical statements that I laid out?
If your answer is yes, then Gyges will debate you with the assumption that those statements are true.
If your answer is no then would you like to dispute the truth of one or more of those statements?
If your answer is yes then Gyges will likely be willing to debate about the truth of the statements that you contest.
If your answer is no then Gyges is unwilling to debate.
If I’m wrong, I’m sure Gyges will tell us so.
Is that clear?
Hence refusing the conditions under which he was willing to engage you.
**************************************
YES.
I refused to let HIM DEFINE MY ARGUMENT.
SO??????
I don’t think that I’ve done anything other than to patiently try to explain to you what I think Gyges position is
******************************************
I didn’t need you to explain Gyges position. He explained it fine last night.
You’re just repeating what I have already addressed.
Why, I don’t know.
Get it now?
I don’t need to hear from Gyges to address the insanity of your argument (calling your argument insane, not you).
YOU are stating, forget Gyges, YOU are stating that I either have to:
1. Agree with Gyges.
2. Or select one of the 3 wrong answers that HE picked out for me.
Can’t you see how insane that is?
goneville posted:
There Slarti.
Now please stop pretending you didn’t see these responses.
I saw your responses. Gyges offered a challenge and laid down ground rules for it (which I laid out as 6 logical variables and 4 logical statements). You refused to answer his challenge within the context of these variables and statements. He retired from the field. I offered to debate him on the issue that I thought he was interested in. It’s his move now – check out the ‘recent comments’ we’re the only ones posting here right now. Gyges is going to see all of these emails and probably delete them without looking – wait until you see him post something and if it isn’t on this thread, post where he did and ask him to read this (or I’ll do it when I get up – which will probably be around noon). Then see what he has to say. Then we can argue about which one of us is insane.
I did meet his logic, and I refuted it by showing that his pigeon holing of the concept of God to only 3 possibilities that HE deems fit, was wrong.
No, you refused to accept the logical framework which he offered and he refused a debate outside of that framework. Both of you were well within your rights. You seem to think that Gyges should engage with you on your terms – why doesn’t he have the right to refuse?
There was another possibility. And I presented that possibility.
Hence refusing the conditions under which he was willing to engage you.
You are free to challenge that possibility and reasoning I presented if you like but dishonestly pretending I never offered it when its staring you right in the face is, ..well I don’t know what that is.
Whatever it is it isn’t nice.
I don’t think that I’ve done anything other than to patiently try to explain to you what I think Gyges position is – wait for him to weigh in – until then this conversation is pointless. After he weighs in we’ll have something more to talk about.
Lets see if this sheds some light.
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.
I don’t believe any of the three definitions, so why would I pick one?
That’s like giving me three wrong answers to a problem on an math quiz, and asking me which one I want to submit as my answer.
Do you see how stupid that is?
Wait and see if Gyges agrees with my characterization of his argument – if he says I’m wrong, I will apologize to you.
*****************************
I don’t need nor want an apology from you.
And we don’t need to wait for Gyges as you’re simply repeating his demand.
I’m trying to make this simple for you but it ain’t easy.
1. Gyges claims there is no God.
2. Gyges finds quote on internet or in book from Greek philosopher and proceeds to come up with 3 strict definitions of God.
3. Gyges declares I either agree there is no God, or pick one of the 3 definitions of the God he doesn’t believe in, and DEFEND it.
That’s got to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
He challenged you to a sword fight and you want to duel with pistols – that’s your right, but he has the right to decline the duel.
********************************************
Yes, but you’re saying he gets to select a sword, then hand me a butter knife.
Which part of he wasn’t making those arguments, don’t you get?
That which he was not asserting, I do not need to refute.
As shocking as it might sound, I actually did other things besides replying to you. You certainly have the right not to engage in the argument that Gyges is offering – and he has the right to decline the argument that you are offering. If you accept his terms, then you are constrained to the options I outlined. If you reject them he’s not going to argue with you. What part of this don’t you get?
*************************************
The part where you get to demand that the only positions I can argue are the ones he’s already refuted himself.
goneville said:
So it took all night for you to actually come out and state that in order to explain my concept or a
concept I am discussing of God, I must only use the 3 parameters outlined in a quote provided by a guy who by his own admission doesn’t believe in God?
As shocking as it might sound, I actually did other things besides replying to you. You certainly have the right not to engage in the argument that Gyges is offering – and he has the right to decline the argument that you are offering. If you accept his terms, then you are constrained to the options I outlined. If you reject them he’s not going to argue with you. What part of this don’t you get?
Do you hear what you are saying?
You’re saying that if I have a position of God, then I cannot state it.
No, I’m saying that you can’t force Gyges to engage you in a discussion – if you want to have a discussion with him, you’ve got to convince him that he wants to have the discussion, too.
Instead, I have to select from 3 opinions from a quote that Gyges found.
You have to select from those three options, dispute one or more of the statements, or decline the challenge – those are your only options.
I have no mind of my own.
I’m not touching that one.
I cannot present an alternative position?
You are free to present whatever position you want to – Gyges is free to ignore it if he wants to. He’s made his position crystal clear (at least to me, I could be wrong, but I don’t think that I am).
Slarti, this is insane. Sorry but its utterly insane. I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t need to “wait for gyges”
I did answer his challenge and you are being dishonest in pretending that I did not.
He challenged you to a sword fight and you want to duel with pistols – that’s your right, but he has the right to decline the duel.
Wait and see if Gyges agrees with my characterization of his argument – if he says I’m wrong, I will apologize to you.
Gyges presented 3 possible OPINIONS on whether or not God interfered with the existence of man, and if so what that meant about God.
Gyges stated he doesn’t believe in a God anyway, so he quotes a Greek philosopher to challenge a discussion on the Christian God who lived before Christ was born.
So I am supposed to frame my comments on the Christian deity, based on 3 parameters defined by one Greek Philosopher who lived before Christ was born?
Do you have any idea how insane that is?
That’s like saying I have to make his argument, for him.
If I have an alternative viewpoint, who cares, right?
No one wants to hear that because according to you, I have to either share Gyges viewpoints, or opposing viewpoints which HE defines for me.
I don’t even know how to address such lunacy.
Slarti, this is insane. Sorry but its utterly insane. I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t need to “wait for gyges”
I did answer his challenge and you are being dishonest in pretending that I did not.
Here, since you chose to ignore the logic I responded with.
**********************************************************
#
goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Gyges 1, April 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Gone,
Now as to what you say, all your arguments are based on Three basic assumptions: That there is a god; That this god wants us to have free will; That in order to have free will, one must have a good and an evil to choose from.
I don’t happen to believe any of those three is true. The one you’re most likely to be able to get me to concede is the third, so if you really want to have this discussion I’d suggest starting there”
************************************
Well I could start there is I was going to start a discussion with someone who doesn’t believe in a God or at least the one defined in the NT, yet yet chooses to define this God they don’t believe in in order to refute their own definitions of him. I could I guess, but I won’t. Its a loaded question.
“I declare there is no God, and now let me tell you what he’s like”.
See the problem?
You’re defining the God you don’t believe in for others, then using your definition of the God you don’t believe in in order to prove that he doesn’t exist. Its an impossible position to begin from.
Rather than starting there I’ll start with your definition of him and address that. Cool?
#
35 goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Gyges 1, April 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Gone,
Actually, that quote only argues against one specific type of god: A morally good god, who is both omnipotent and directly involved in the affairs of humans. It leaves open the possibility of morally neutral watchmaker type god, that is one whose domain is nature, and who has no concern about the lives of humans.
***********************************************
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.
#
36 goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Now as to what you say, all your arguments are based on Three basic assumptions: That there is a god; That this god wants us to have free will; That in order to have free will, one must have a good and an evil to choose from.
I don’t happen to believe any of those three is true
*******************************
Again you presume to prepare my position, then counter it.
What’s up with that?
I never said what I believed, nor did I make the assumption that there is a God, nor do I argue that you should believe in one. You should first ask someone what they believe, prior to summarizing their beliefs.
As for free will, that’s from the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, not mine. Jesus taught that the world was like a vineyard, and the master of the vineyard was God.
The master of the vineyard left the vineyard in control of the servants, (us) to do with and manage according to their own will. He left instructions to follow but he gave the agency to the servants to decide for themselves. They’re in control.
That’s straight from the New Testament, so don’t ascribe it to me. I didn’t write the books. I’ve read them, but I didn’t write them. So if what Jesus said was true, or better put if you believe what Jesus taught, then you’d know that God is not directly intervening in our lives here on earth. The earth is the vineyard, and the masters away. And when he returns, then comes the reckoning, but not until.
Not my teachings. His. So if you don’t believe that that’s fine, and I’m not asking you to. I am not looking for proselytes nor do I belong to any organized religions.
That’s what he said. So if you want to refute the Christian faith, then that’s where you’ll want to start.
***********************************************************
There Slarti.
Now please stop pretending you didn’t see these responses.
I did meet his logic, and I refuted it by showing that his pigeon holing of the concept of God to only 3 possibilities that HE deems fit, was wrong.
There was another possibility. And I presented that possibility.
You are free to challenge that possibility and reasoning I presented if you like but dishonestly pretending I never offered it when its staring you right in the face is, ..well I don’t know what that is.
Whatever it is it isn’t nice.
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:34 am
As you can see, logically speaking, you must either choose between the three types of God that Gyges presented you with or refute one or more of his statements.
***************************************
So it took all night for you to actually come out and state that in order to explain my concept or a concept I am discussing of God, I must only use the 3 parameters outlined in a quote provided by a guy who by his own admission doesn’t believe in God?
Do you hear what you are saying?
You’re saying that if I have a position of God, then I cannot state it.
Instead, I have to select from 3 opinions from a quote that Gyges found.
I have no mind of my own.
I cannot present an alternative position?
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:50 am
goneville,
You can either accept Gyges’ challenge and meet him on the field of logical discourse or decline it
*************************************
I did accept his challenge.
You keep ignoring the logic I presented in response to his challenge.
Please stop misrepresenting it as if I had not responded.
Gyges,
For the sake of illustration, I say that free will cannot exist with a choice between good and evil, for without that choice free will is meaningless.
goneville,
You can either accept Gyges’ challenge and meet him on the field of logical discourse or decline it (in which case he’s made it clear he isn’t interested in further discussion). This is where you get to exercise free will – do you want to have the argument Gyges is willing to have or not?
If you don’t agree with my interpretation, then I suggest that you wait for Gyges to weigh in on whether or not I’ve represented him accurately. In the meantime, feel free to respond to my post on the unnatural selection thread.
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:34 am
First, you have to either accept or reject each of these logical statements – i
****************************************
No, I do not.
Which part of HE rejected them have you not already grasped?
How clear do I need to be here Slarti?
He was not asking me to reject them.
He was asking me to select one of them, and then SELL HIM ON IT.
Go back and read what he wrote.