LadyForCamus Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:And assuming that I would not have the position I have unless I had not read the thread speaks to your style of assigning failures on the part of your interlocuters as the most likely explanation for them not sharing your point of view.

I'm sure there are lots of people more fallible than you, I may be among them. It's not like I looked at your posts to CL and thought   'there goes Lady of Camus again, harassing people'. I wouldn't take the time for someone who hadn't given me reason to expect better.

I apologize.  I did not mean it that way at all.  I am sure there are plenty of valid reasons for any number of people to disagree with me on many subjects.  I am always happy to consider that I have fucked up.  If the way I came across toward CL in this thread is incongruent with the way I perceived myself as coming across, I will work harder to be more precise about my thoughts and feelings.  In fact I thought I had done just so.  

Could be I'm the one over-reacting. In any case, that's a very mature and classy response, consistent with what I've come to admire about you.

LadyForCamus Wrote:

Jörmungandr Wrote:I fail to see how what CL has said is an example of special pleading.  The argument from evil basically states that God would not allow gratuitous evil, that is, evil that is not otherwise necessary.  She has clearly elucidated the defense that she does not believe God has allowed unnecessary suffering, that he has a reason for its necessity which is consistent with a greater good.  She has also said that she doesn't know what that reason is.

Nowhere in this do I see any special pleading.  Could you be a little more precise in specifying your objection?

In other words, if such a judgement of gratuitous versus necessary evil can never be considered objectively morally acceptable here amongst us humans, is it not special pleading to give God allowance to do it for reason unknowable to us?

Hmm. I don't think so. God is sufficiently different from us by definition that it's not necessarily special pleading to hold God to a different standard. A mortal can be taken to account and, if necessary, forced to explain their reasoning. Whether real or imagined, that's impossible with God.

(March 10, 2016 at 3:43 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: But she doesn't need rescuing because she is a woman.  She needs support because she is seriously out nunbered as a believer here.  I came to her support because she asked me to.  She was feeling overwhelmed by the negativity and didn't feel anything she could say while still be true to herself would help.  I'm not the only one she asked, nor is she the only one I've ever supported when asked.

She doesn't need rescuing at all is what I am saying.

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:I was living my life. I can't spend every hour on the internet. Could you not think of something weaker than that to complain about?

Can you think of anything weaker than to critique someone's comments when you haven't been following the thread for context? I know I can't.

You were unfairly hard on Lady For Camus, who should be allowed to press her point on a question of morality when it's raised. CL may have hurt feelings, but this is due to her own cognitive dissonance, which has turned out to be more pervasive than some of us realized - I was a theist myself, but i wasn't that immune to the blacklight of logic! I don't think this has been easy for Lady either, before you dropped in, and i believe she genuinely cares about CL (not a mean bastard as I am all too often, I know) so please step lightly with her if you're going to defend CL.

I see a more detailed response is needed for you.

It's the nature of the internet that I don't actually have to be present at the time to follow the conversation. Everyone's posts are preserved for later perusal. You can't seriously be suggesting that my judgment is flawed because I wasn't caught up in the emotionality of the moment, can you?

There's a difference between pressing your point and going around in circles until the person you're badgering shuts down.

I'm pretty sure her hurt feelings were exactly as she said, due to be ganged up on and relentlessly hammered on questions she had already answered. Which you happily joined in on. I'll take a page from your book and assume that you're defending LfC because of your own cognitive dissonance between thinking you're a decent human being and the evidence that you were behaving like an ass like others who joined in your bullying. I assume you'll let that stand since you seem to think your own guess as to other people's motivations should trump what they've actually said.

I'll call 'em like I see 'em. Always.

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:To be fair about it, I don't see anyone still passing judgement on CL, and a few of you are protecting pets of yours from all criticism as a means of building political clout around here. I still like CL, and I hope she comes back, but she should not be made by any sanctimonious assholes on a power play to believe her comments are above critical analysis, and she opened a serious can of worms with this thread.

Yep, I pick favorites and recall each and every post so I can use it later to get those who pick on them. As anyone around here can tell you, I'm all about building the political clout around here (no eye-rolling emoji powerful enough)....

Irrational Wrote:

Tiberius Wrote:I dunno, I feel like Catholic dogma gets complicated when you try to call God a "person", perhaps "being" is the right word. However on that point I'm fairly certain it's considered impossible for Catholics to even attempt to hold God to a certain standard; it's God's standard in the first place, and intended for humans only (it doesn't apply to animals), so presumably the Catholic argument would be that God can pretty much do whatever he wants without violating morality, because morality is something to be subjected upon human beings. There's also the argument that anything God does is inherently moral by the very nature of God and objective morality. It gets confusing very quickly.

True, three persons in one being, according to the Catholic faith, but we are made in the image of God as persons (in other words, like him).

So ok, if that's the case, using that reasoning about God, why not extend this to other entities as well? What is it about being human that makes a human being standing by and watching someone else harm a third person be morally wrong that they be held accountable for not stopping the offender if they had the power to do so?

If it's something to do with rationality or having a moral sense or whatever, then why should God be treated any different (since he has those as well)?

Human beings set rules for their pets and livestock that don't apply to them. It would be silly to make a rule about the dog not being on the bed that applies to you, too. Even if you consider your dog  a person; they're not your equal and don't get to hold you to the same standard to which you hold them.

(March 10, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Irrational Wrote:True, three persons in one being, according to the Catholic faith, but we are made in the image of God as persons (in other words, like him).

So ok, if that's the case, using that reasoning about God, why not extend this to other entities as well? What is it about being human that makes a human being standing by and watching someone else harm a third person be morally wrong that they be held accountable for not stopping the offender if they had the power to do so?

If it's something to do with rationality or having a moral sense or whatever, then why should God be treated any different (since he has those as well)?

Human being set rules for their pets and livestock that don't apply to them. It would be silly to make a rule about the dog not being on the bed that applies to you, too. Even if you consider your dog  a person; they're not your equal and don't get to hold you to the same standard to which you hold them.

Are you being serious? There's a huge difference between sleeping in a bed and genocide. You cannot equate the two. Also, you can set a rule for a dog but it it's not morally wrong for the dog to run away and say to hell with you and your rules.

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

Luckie Wrote:[quote=Tiberius]

I admit I have not read back as far as shit slinging; I've only seen the recent correspondences between Lady Camus, Mr. Hanky Spanky, and CL. I will be reviewing the entire thread and report my findings here and in our mod section. 

For anyone who doubts CL is a woman, a legit female as she portrays, and also not a sock puppet--I take Tiberius' word as sufficient evidence, and so should you all. There is no question, on this issue.

Hey, Kitty, don't you be sticking that comment on me - it wasn't me who raised doubt on whether CL is in fact female, which is the one thing which anyone said of her which was truly out of line! It's a whole different issue than the fact that she's been getting special protection, no matter how ignorant her remarks have been. That was Benny.

Special protection? I hope you'd get pushback no matter who you treated like that.

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:I was living my life. I can't spend every hour on the internet. Could you not think of something weaker than that to complain about?

You said before that you read the whole thread, and now you admit that you didn't. Why don't you just pick a lie and stick with it?

When you realize how those comments do not contradict each other, you will have learned.

God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:When I look at this thread, I see what is supposed to be casual conversation between adults with free time on their hands, not a battle in the greater war for justice against the depredations of religion.

A couple of years here taught me that you're not going to change any minds by (metaphorically) bashing their skulls until things re-arrange to your liking. Which I should have known, because I was a believing Christian once and passionate insults had nothing to do with why I'm not anymore.

Justice doesn't matter here? Good, then in that case we don't need any mods!

Honest to serious fuck, if we didn't take the injustices of religion very seriously, then we'd all be somewhere discussing Justin Bieber, or at a book club.

It's like you're responding to different posts than the ones you're quoting. Posts that say what you'd like to imagine the person would have said so you can be outraged about it.