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:
if you read above I thanked you for posting the verse about sending the rain to the just and unjust. I think it pretty much explains your position.
“God doesn’t interfere in the affairs of men”. Right?
Byron said:
“You may want to re-read what Gyges posted. I think that is what Slarti is alluding to. Although I could be wrong.”
No, you got it right. And I like the term ‘angelology’. Do you think a choice between good and evil is necessary for free will?
goneville:
I am not attacking your position. I was merely offering some additional information for your consideration.
Epicurus contended that if a God existed, and IF he were a “good God”, then he would naturally not permit evil to occur.
I however presented a counter to Epicurus argument (Epicurus who lived centuries before Christ was born) based on the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.
That theory is simple. God is aware of evil, but is himself bound from directly interfering due to the free will of man.
God gave man free will to do as he chooses in this one place. That’s what Jesus taught. He presented God as an absentee landlord who leaves the vineyard in charge of the workers (us).
Therefore it would not make sense that he would interfere with the actions of man, because to do so he would violate his own word with regards to the free will he gave mankind, and thus cease to be God.
So the logic is simple. I presented this simple, easy to understand logic last night. Its not just “my logic”. Its what’s taught in the New Testament. Jesus comes right out and declares the randomness of life in Matthew 5:45 which I quoted at 9PM last night.
**************************************
“In Matthew 5:45 Jesus tells us “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”.”
**************************************
So we see Epicurus, who was born BEFORE Christ, was not privy to this doctrine. Jesus taught this centuries later. Is it true? That’s up to the individual to decide. I simply presented it as a possible and logical explanation of why God would permit men to do evil to other men, and why random acts of nature strike us.
Jesus explained it. Because he sends the rain on the just and the unjust alike.
No one seemed to be able to address that simple logic and ever since then I’ve been having to explain why I don’t have to define my position from among the limited parameters of Epicurus.
And during all that, I’ve managed to dismantle a “birther conspiracy” in another thread.
I think I’ve done enough for a 24 hour period.
I think its time people like you actually take the time to read the words written, prior to demanding I rewrite them for you all over again.
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm
goneville:
this is arguing the number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin. St. Thomas wasted quite a good deal of his intellect in just such endeavors. Angelology I have heard it called.
Accept the existence of God and move on. If you believe don’t argue against His existence.
*************************
Again try reading the arguments you’re slithering into at the last minute to try to add more confusion to.
I was neither arguing the existence of God, or non existence of one.
And I stated that early on last night and you’d know that if you would bother to read the discussion prior to attacking my positions or trying to define them.
Here, I shouldn’t do this for you but here’s a summary, for the 1000th time.
1.Gyges offered the reasoning of Epicurus as to why God does not interfere to prevent evil from occurring.
2. Gyges did not agree with any of those and concluded there is no God.
3. I did not agree with any of those either.
4. I offered an alternative possibility based on what’s taught in the New Testament.
5. Gyges got mad because I wouldn’t either accept his position that there is no God, or accept one of the parameter to define the God he didn’t believe in as outlined by Epicurus, and vacated the discussion.
6. Enter Slarti, who proceeded to demand I either concede that there is no God, per Gyges claim, or confine my beliefs, opinions, etc to ONLY the explanation of God, as outlined by Epicurus.
7. I spent the entire night trying to explain to Slarti how stupid that was.
8. Enter you and the other stragglers to side with your friends without first bothering to read what was actually going on.
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm
goneville:
You may want to re-read what Gyges posted. I think that is what Slarti is alluding to. Although I could be wrong.
**************************************************
Re-read it?
I’ve REPOSTED it 100 times.
You read it.
Please, keep out of it unless you have the sense to read what was written prior to adding more confusion to the issue.
Slarti apparently thrives on confusion.
I’ve taken great lengths to be clear, concise, space out my words so all can read them without any fancy jargon to conceal my meanings in. I’ve been honest, forthcoming and incredibly focused on detail.
So if you’re going to lazily jump to someones defense and start attacking my position, try READING it first.
Thank you.
goneville:
this is arguing the number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin. St. Thomas wasted quite a good deal of his intellect in just such endeavors. Angelology I have heard it called.
Accept the existence of God and move on. If you believe don’t argue against His existence.
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm
goneville:
being late to the discussion but with a little knowledge I would like to offer up this fact for your consideration: Gyges is very fond of Epicurus and would probably not be refuting his teachings.
**********************************************************
He came right out and said he was refuting the scenarios of a God not involved in stopping human evil because he didn’t believe in God.
Please do not join in. I do not need to spend another night explaining the words to someone too lazy to read them for themselves.
And Bdaman, I could care less about your looney bin accusations about who I am.
ANYONE who was dragged through an entire evening by such a stupid argument would have long since “lost it”.
Caps are for emphasis and a natural response when you have to write something out for someone 200 times before they get it.
I’ve been quite polite and reasonable here but the argument itself a stupid one and one that is dishonest.
The argument pretends;
1. That I did not address Epicurus when in fact I did in several lengthy comments.
2. That I have to refute Gyges claim that Epicurus was wrong, when in fact I AGREE with Gyges that Epicurus is wrong. So why would I refute it?
3. That for some reason I and I alone must confine my positions to the ones my opponent outlines for me.
All 3 of those things are ludicrous.
The fact that I choose to use a few caps for emphasis for a patently stupid argument against me that at the end of the day has no point, other than to personally discredit me, hardly constitutes anything beyond the normal frustration anyone would experience at such a thick headed barrage of nonsense.
None of it means anything, other than folks were not able to address my position, so they began inventing lunatic scenarios to drag me into defending against to evade having to address my actual position.
goneville:
being late to the discussion but with a little knowledge I would like to offer up this fact for your consideration: Gyges is very fond of Epicurus and would probably not be refuting his teachings.
You may want to re-read what Gyges posted. I think that is what Slarti is alluding to. Although I could be wrong.
Why are we arguing this?
It seems to me we’re arguing this because no one is capable of refuting the position I presented.
Gyges ran away from it. And Slarit refused to acknowledge even its existence. And now you too seem to be insinuating that I did not address it when in fact that I did address it and in great detail.
Here. Since several want to pretend I did not address Gyges claims, here is the comments for the 3rd time, where I did and in great detail.
Observe:
*************************************************************
**********************************************************
#
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
Now could e please stop pretending I did not respond about Epicurus?
Goneville you sure do post a lot like this other poster named 30%er Jacob Marley Gerty did with your repetitiveness and now I see you are starting to use caps like they did. Just sayin
Regardless of how goneville or Gyges defines the parameters of the debate, goneville needs to deal with the the Epicurean Paradox.
******************************
What paradox? He defined three possible explanations as to EVIL, not God. His question was why doesn’t God stop evil.
I DID ADDRESS THAT.
I offered an alternative view to the narrow views Gyges offered based on Epicurus.
So please. Don’t misrepresent my position as if I had not addressed something when in fact I did, and I just did.
Slarti is demanding I either refute those three views or “PICK ONE” like Gyges required, and defend it.
I cannot.
For I do not agree with either of the three explanations as to why God does not interfere with human evil.
Therefore I cannot “PICK ONE” and defend it.
The alternative provided me if I do not “pick one and defend it” is to then concede that there must be no God.
That’s ludicrous. I have to pick one of SOMEONE ELSES arguments or accept my opponents positions? I cannot offer an alternative position of my own, or one that I agree with? In what world is this normal? In what world do any of you follow such ludicrous rules?
It makes no sense. I spelled out my position, and no one seemed to be able to refute it. Instead you simply change the parameters of the debate and declare I either have to pick one of the 3 already disproved theories Gyges presented, or admit he’s right and there is no God.
And that’s positively insane.
mespo727272 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm
slarti:
I’ve followed the thread and it appears we have a UN problem: The language and constructs of the argument are getting in the way. Regardless of how goneville or Gyges defines the parameters of the debate, goneville needs to deal with the the Epicurean Paradox. Apparently, goneville contends that god doesn’t “want” to stop evil, and posits that as a fourth option. Personally, I think that ends the discussion as it appears to me such a position is the very definition of divine malevolence when viewed in the context of a natural disaster like the tsunami I mentioned.
*****************************************
Well it doesn’t mean malevolence and I explained that in great detail how that was not the case.
Claiming a God has to be your personal bodyguard and handservant is not an argument as to his malevolence.
Its a parameter YOU define for the God you don’t believe in.
You can define the God you don’t believe in in the terms you want if you want, but the New Testament defines him differently.
The New Testament defines him as a master of a Vineyard who has temporarily left the workers in charge.
That’s fact.
You can ignore it if you want.
You can leverage the OPINIONS of a Greek Philosopher who lived 300 years BEFORE Christ was born.
Or you can address it.
And thanks by the way for coming into another discussion I was having with a birther, and calling me a troll.
I have been civil and have painstakingly tried to help you see the ludicrous nature of your argument that I must refute something that I agree with.
Why do you have to get personal with me and insult me Slarti? I am trying to work with you here. But you seem intent on insulting me and my intelligence.
Which is striking given you’re the one who spent the entire night demanding I REFUTE SOMETHING THAT I AGREE WITH.
Here. This is what you are asking me to do.
*************************
“Gyges I disagree with you that Epicurus is wrong, so here, let me show you how he’s wrong”.
***************************
How can you not see how irrational (and stupid) that statement is?
You’re saying that I have to refute Epicurus when Gyges was already refuting Epicurus.
How would I do that exactly?
Why would I do that exactly.
GYGES AND I AGREED ON THAT POINT.
So why do I have to refute a point, that I AGREE WITH???
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Regardless of how goneville or Gyges defines the parameters of the debate, goneville needs to deal with the the Epicurean Paradox.
*******************************************
Again you demand I refute a position that Gyges was not advocating.
HE was refuting it.
Why can’t you comprehend that???
HE WAS REFUTING Epicurus.
And you’re claiming I also have to refute it to refute him?
What sort of “logic” is that?
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 2:09 pm
goneville,
This will be my last response to you on this topic – you are clearly unable or unwilling to carry on a rational discussion.
***********************************************
Why are you calling me irrational?
You’re the one demanding I permit Gyges to frame my positions prior to my presenting them.
That is irrational.
Mespo,
I got distracted by my extended exchange (of nothing significant) with gonesville, but I wanted to thank you for letting me know the origin of ‘727272’ – although by my count it seems to be about 72^10. I’m loathe to attack your most cherished ’72’, but I feel it necessary to point out that Hertz is just cycles per second – i.e. a measure of the frequency of an oscillation and that everything has a specific resonant frequency (so ‘lowest’ doesn’t really make sense here), however I did some cursory research and found that electromagnetic oscillations at 72 Hz seem to have biological significance with regard to the human brain (there was something on the cellular level referring to p21 production too (a protein significant in cancer research), but the link was broken) so I think I’m just not understanding what your friend was telling you..
Mespo(72^n) posted: