Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?

[PRmerger]

Precisely! It grossly underestimates the reality of diabolical evil in the world revealed in the premeditated and carefully planned atrocities which have destroyed the lives of innocent men, women and atrocities for which there is no excuse whatsoever.

And this still leaves the problem for the atheist.

Without God, the idea of suffering is bleak indeed.

Death and isolation are the only options.

It’s no wonder so many atheists suffer from such deep, dark despondence.

If they would only turn towards the Light…

There is hope indeed.

 

[RCinMT]

But hell is a different beast. In the scenario you outlined, everything is crystal clear, nothing is left to chance, no one can read the handbook (which every employee was given and told to read). It’s straightforward. The problem with God, not that he only has one, is that masses and masses of people both before and after Christ are only dimly aware that, to continue with the analogy,stealing is wrong and not at all aware that they will lose their job and be prosecuted if they do steal. Thousands, millions maybe, are in eternal hell who had no idea it existed in the first place! so the modern sugar-coaters of hell could not say that these people chose to send themselves to hell, could they?

Excellent! By virtue of making no attempt to further defend X in the hypothetical scenario, you have consented to the idea that it’s not unjust to receive the fully stated punishment for breaking known rules.

Now you have pivoted to a new argument which is, in essence, X is given the handbook but consciously chooses not to read it. Further, X has repeatedly overheard others discussing the stated policies of the company, some even speaking directly to X about the policies. As was the previous case, X breaks a policy that results in termination. X argues that she didn’t know the policy because she chose to ignore the handbook and disregarded the words–which she heard repeatedly–of her co-workers.

Are you arguing that X should keep her job on the grounds that she didn’t directly know her actions would lead to termination because she willfully disregarded the handbook and ignored the words of her coworkers?

Or perhaps X is arguing that she cannot be held to the stated policies in the handbook because she didn’t agree with what she knew of it. In other words she is arguing that she made up her own policies, followed them and therefore cannot be held to the stated policies of the company.

Do you argue that in either scenario X’s position is tenable?

 

[inocente]

I think this is just a silly response to the information presented. Since you don’t seem to know God, it is evident that this is an ignorant statement of contradiction, very far from clear logic.

David, I think this was an ad hominem, as you voiced value judgements against the poster rather than answering his/her arguments.

His/her arguments were about the catechism, and as this forum is in the apologetic section, how about you, PR, Tony or another using it as an opportunity to explain those aspects of Catholicism?

 

[inocente]

Excellent! By virtue of making no attempt to further defend X in the hypothetical scenario, you have consented to the idea that it’s not unjust to receive the fully stated punishment for breaking known rules.

Now you have pivoted to a new argument which is, in essence, X is given the handbook but consciously chooses not to read it. Further, X has repeatedly overheard others discussing the stated policies of the company, some even speaking directly to X about the policies. As was the previous case, X breaks a policy that results in termination. X argues that she didn’t know the policy because she chose to ignore the handbook and disregarded the words–which she heard repeatedly–of her co-workers.

Are you arguing that X should keep her job on the grounds that she didn’t directly know her actions would lead to termination because she willfully disregarded the handbook and ignored the words of her coworkers?

Or perhaps X is arguing that she cannot be held to the stated policies in the handbook because she didn’t agree with what she knew of it. In other words she is arguing that she made up her own policies, followed them and therefore cannot be held to the stated policies of the company.

Do you argue that in either scenario X’s position is tenable?

Yes, because the handbook is part of the terms and conditions of her contract of employment, and no officer of the company got her to sign that she had read it, or even bothered to check she understood it, so they were negligent. (And for all we know she has special needs, making the company even more culpable.)

Of course, if you were instead talking of the criminal law, then ignorance wouldn’t be a defense, since all citizens agree implicitly to be bound by the law in return for the rights they’re granted by society.

In one case the agreement is explicit, in the other implicit, but in both she can choose. If she doesn’t agree to the employment contract she can leave the company, if she doesn’t agree to the law of the land she can leave the country. That’s what justice and free-will require. But are you arguing she has no choice when it comes to complying with eternal conditions?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, because the handbook is part of the terms and conditions of her contract of employment, and no officer of the company got her to sign that she had read it, or even bothered to check she understood it, so they were negligent. (And for all we know she has special needs, making the company even more culpable.)

Correct. In actual life (not the analogical), there is no “handbook” at all. It would be very nice if there were one.

Of course, if you were instead talking of the criminal law, then ignorance wouldn’t be a defense, since all citizens agree implicitly to be bound by the law in return for the rights they’re granted by society.

Very well said. But there is a miniscule discrepancy. The principle of “ignorance of the law excuses nothing” is not absolute. It is only applicable if it could be reasonably expected that the person should have known about the law. This might be considered hairsplitting, though I don’t think so.

In one case the agreement is explicit, in the other implicit, but in both she can choose. If she doesn’t agree to the employment contract she can leave the company, if she doesn’t agree to the law of the land she can leave the country. That’s what justice and free-will require. But are you arguing she has no choice when it comes to complying with eternal conditions?

There is no option: “Stop the world, I want to get off”.

Vera_Ljuba

 

[davidv]

Correct. In actual life (not the analogical), there is no “handbook” at all. It would be very nice if there were one.

Very well said. But there is a miniscule discrepancy. The principle of “ignorance of the law excuses nothing” is not absolute. It is only applicable if it could be reasonably expected that the person should have known about the law. This might be considered hairsplitting, though I don’t think so.

There is no option: “Stop the world, I want to get off”.

Vera_Ljuba

Why is a handbook required?

What is unclear about the command to love God and neighbor? Why would one not know about this law?