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
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 8:09 pm
GONEVILLE:
“define pussy”
It is impossible unless you know the context. Are we talking malevolent pussy or unwilling pussy?
*********************************
Why are you asking me?
Slarti asked the question.
With regards to malevolent pussy, we’ll I’ve know some wome…..never mind.
Byron,
A pussy god is both impotent and malevolent.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
goneville posted:
GONEVILLE:
“define pussy”
It is impossible unless you know the context. Are we talking malevolent pussy or unwilling pussy?
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Dr.Slarti I think he gets a kick out of his repetitiveness.
***************************************
MY repetitiveness?
When someone keeps asking a question that you’ve already given an answer on, what else are you supposed to do?
Change your positions until you find one they like?
Is god able to prevent evil?
Who’s God? The Christian God? Or the God of Epicurus?
***************************
Is god willing to prevent evil?
*************************************
Who’s God? The Christian God? Or the God of Epicurus?
Define evil. That’s a broad parameter.
If we’re talking about the Christian God, and if by evil you mean man doing bad things to other man, then no. Jesus taught God is bound by our free will.
*****************************************************
Is there evil in the world?
********************************
Again, define evil please. Are you asking me if man does bad things to each other? Sure.
Look what you’ve been doing to me.
****************************************
Do you agree that a god willing but unable to prevent evil is not omnipotent?
**************************************
No. There’s many reasons why good people sometimes have to let bad things happen. And I spelled many of them out that if YOU had bothered to read, you wouldn’t need to keep asking me about.
****************************************
Do you agree that a god able but not willing to prevent evil is malevolent?
**************************************
Not necessarily. Again I painstakingly spelled out many scenarios in which we permit evil to exist, but are not necessarily malevolent.
Again, why are you reasking the same questions I answered even before you asked them last night? You did not read my words, and you refuse to address my actual argument.
I reprinted it now like 10 times.
How many times before you read it and address it?
***************************************
Do you agree that a god neither willing nor able to prevent evil is a pussy?
***********************************************
Define pussy.
Dr.Slarti I think he gets a kick out of his repetitiveness. Some how repeating the same thing and being the same poster comment after comment some how gives him the idea he is winning the discussion. Do you remember the way I use to be with global warming? I do now.
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm
goneville,
If you want me to stop calling you a troll, then stop repeatedly posting the same thing, take some time to actually read my posts and address the issues I raise.
*******************************
Are you kidding me?
I did read your posts. Hell I dissected them! Line by line.
And I tried (and am still trying but not much longer) to explain to you how utterly ignorant your demands that I confine my positions on the possible nature of the Christian God, by the opinions of a Greek Philosopher who lived centuries before Christianity even came into existence.
goneville,
If you want me to stop calling you a troll, then stop repeatedly posting the same thing, take some time to actually read my posts and address the issues I raise. Gyges wasn’t advocating nor rejecting a position taken by Epicurus, he was posing a dilemma about the nature of god (any god) raised by Epicurus that must be answered by any theist. Logically, you must either choose the characteristics that you believe that god has or refute Epicurus’ logical statements (or explain why you feel that the rules of logic should not apply to you). So if you would like to continue this conversation, then answer the following questions:
Is god able to prevent evil?
Is god willing to prevent evil?
Is there evil in the world?
Do you agree that a god willing but unable to prevent evil is not omnipotent?
Do you agree that a god able but not willing to prevent evil is malevolent?
Do you agree that a god neither willing nor able to prevent evil is a pussy?
No one is forcing you to answer these questions in any particular way, just answer them and defend your answers (and accept the logical implications of those answers). You don’t have to answer the questions, but if you don’t, we all have the right to ignore you (and I believe that if you don’t you will be showing that you are a troll and we should all ignore you).
And Bdaman, your constant attacks claiming I am someone I am not are not helping.
And rather than trying to move the goal posts on down the road to completely wear me out prior to declaring whatever sort of victory you are working on, how about taking a shot at refuting my logic and my argument.
I only made one.
And that one argument has required I respond to a dozen or more false flag attacks for a day now.
Mespo I see your right on time two nights in a row.
For your review
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 6:15 pm
And before you repost the same comment, the “doctrine” I am referring to is the Christian doctrine.
Christianity did not exist at the time of Epicurus.
mespo727272 1, April 13, 2010 at 7:24 pm
*******************
If you think this is a unique perspective taught by Jesus, you don’t know much about world religions
*********************
Thanks, I don’t recall ever stating it was a “unique perspective taught by Jesus”.
Please provide me with the comment where I state its a “unique perspective taught by Jesus”.
I think you fall on #2 if I understand your argument. I think Gyges is asking you to explain why God is not malevolent.
*********************************
lol. Did you ever see “Planet of the Apes”?
When Heston realizing he was among a bunch of talking apes screams out “ITS A MAD HOUSE”. A MAAADDDD HOUSE”.
Thats what this is beginning to feel like.
So Byron.
Pay CLOSE attention.
*******************************
I DID explain last night why that would not necessarily mean he was malevolent.
That WAS my position.
My ENTIRE POSITION.
Please, for the love of the God you don’t believe in, PLEASE.
Read first.
Then speak.
**************************************
“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.
*******************
If you think this is a unique perspective taught by Jesus, you don’t know much about world religions. Buddhism accepts the same premise but no mention of Jesus’ input. The same for Hinduism that explains it as punishment for past misdeeds in another life; Islam considers it a test of faith (as it does so many things it can’t explain). Judaism suggested it was punishment for weakness in the faith, and pious Taoists consider both good and bad events the result of the endless, unalterable flow of life. As for the ancient Greeks, they perhaps more than any other ancient people, carefully considered the question of theodicy and, of course, Epicurus was the founder of the school of thought that led the inquiry.
Gyges
1, April 12, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Gone,
I think Epicurus summed it up best (although Twain does a valiant attempt in ‘Letters From Earth’)
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
1. God willing and unable Not God actually some men
2. God unwilling and able God
3. God willing and able God
4. God unwilling and unable Not God actually some men
I think you fall on #2 if I understand your argument. I think Gyges is asking you to explain why God is not malevolent. You then quote Jesus about the rain which doesn’t really answer Gyges’ question but does explain why you believe that God is not malevolent, because Jesus said so.
I think what Gyges and Slarti are saying is that all roads lead to and through Jesus.
Look, I don’t have more to give. I think this has gotten way, way out of hand.
I think the problem here is obvious.
I presented a counter to Gyges arguments that he based on Epicurus, that he couldn’t deal with. So he quit.
And Slarti picked up where he left off to not address my positions, but to drag me into some all night debate of confusion over what was actually being argued, rather than the argument itself, by ignoring my arguments and demanding I adopt a position Gyges carefully prepared for me so he could refute it.
Its nonsense. And I don’t know what else to tell any of you.
Byron 1, April 13, 2010 at 6:56 pm
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?
***********************************************
OMG.
I said that last night.
Why do I have to say it now.
Can you read or not?
Additional confusion is what you were offering.
If you would have read the arguments you would have seen my positions.
And you’re still ignoring my arguments.
Why did I just spend 10 minutes resummarizing my positions for you if you’re just going to skip over it again?
Refute my positions if you want, but lazily adding more confusion to a debate you haven’t a clue about is not helping. If you want to READ the debate, and point to me exactly where you have an issue, then fine. I’m not really interested at this point because frankly this whole thing is the stupidest debate I’ve ever seen.
I’m not being allowed to argue my position.
Instead I’m being forced to defend against ludicrous nonsense invented by confusion from one poster, Slarti, who can’t seem to grasp the fact that what they are arguing makes no sense.