Gods responsibility

[Thief]

Here's the real issue (from which you have attempted to lead us away through a piecemeal approach to my posts in a series of assumptive and misdirected responses). Let's stop the nonsense and get down to the brass tacks of the argument.

Here's the thing: If you're going to argue theology, then argue theology -- don't simply dismiss theology as "unfounded." Otherwise, it's you who have no basis for the discussion of God in any real terms, because God can only be rationally discussed through theological means.

Nice critique.
Right on point.

Perhaps we could also set aside any dogmatic belief.

Most of the 'refute' comes from people having difficulty looking at God as displayed in scripture.
Hence this type of thread.

If we set aside the notions that cannot be made certain (as God with a long white beard).....then maybe we can set in place the notion that God IS capable of dealing with evil....and will do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's the real issue (from which you have attempted to lead us away through a piecemeal approach to my posts in a series of assumptive and misdirected responses). Let's stop the nonsense and get down to the brass tacks of the argument.

I've responded to the points presented. I suspect you want to take a different tack now because it's becoming very apparent that your arguments are irrational.

The OP wonders ultimately (through the use of an analogy) whether God can be held responsible for the evil things we do by virtue of having created us with that capacity. Your entire argument seems to stem from a "theological" position (although I doubt you'd use that particular term) that "God is simply another player in the game," and so of course God is culpable by virtue of God's being an "accomplice." It is this position of God as "simply another player in the game" that strikes me as unfounded and simply being used as a straw man to accomplish your aim of knocking down claims of non-culpability.


Since you seem to hold to this notion that God is "simply another player in the game," lay out exactly how you arrive at this theological position. From there we can proceed.

Wow... you really latched onto that particular phrase, didn't you? It wasn't an argument; it was just a quick way to describe a part of my position.

But let's back up and think about responsibility in general: what do you think makes an entity (e.g. a human being) responsible - or culpable - for his/her/its actions?

Which is precisely what you've been doing. I've presented grounded elements of theological formation, and you refute them as "irrational."

If you make illogical arguments, I won't accept them. Not even if you call them "theological".

Here's the thing: If you're going to argue theology, then argue theology -- don't simply dismiss theology as "unfounded."

Not necessarily all theology... just all the theology I've ever encountered. If you have better stuff tucked away, feel free to share.

Otherwise, it's you who have no basis for the discussion of God in any real terms, because God can only be rationally discussed through theological means.

I thought you wanted to get back to the point of the discussion. Why are you trying to pull us off into a snipe hunt about "theological" arguments?

Present a sound argument - theological or not - and I'll accept it. Otherwise, don't be surprised if I don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW: with 10 theistic respondents to my poll so far, we have some interesting results:

- 6 theists say that God does literally exist, act, love, etc.
- 1 theist says these descriptions are metaphor
- 3 theists say that they're both literal and metaphor

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-believers-these-statements-do-you-agree.html

Still think that I was presenting a straw man, or are you now prepared to acknowledge that many religious people really do believe in the literal truth of the tenets of their religions and what those tenets say about their god(s)?

 

[Thief]

I don't have a religion.
I do believe in God.
I also believe ....do unto others as you would have them do unto you....
is a code of behavior and fair warning.

Will God and heaven hold the perpetrators responsible for the harm they have done?

I think so.

 

[sojourner]

've responded to the points presented. I suspect you want to take a different tack now because it's becoming very apparent that your arguments are irrational.

No, I'm trying to prevent this:

Wow... you really latched onto that particular phrase, didn't you? It wasn't an argument; it was just a quick way to describe a part of my position.

But let's back up and think about responsibility in general: what do you think makes an entity (e.g. a human being) responsible - or culpable - for his/her/its actions?

Quote:
Which is precisely what you've been doing. I've presented grounded elements of theological formation, and you refute them as "irrational."
If you make illogical arguments, I won't accept them. Not even if you call them "theological".

Quote:
Here's the thing: If you're going to argue theology, then argue theology -- don't simply dismiss theology as "unfounded."
Not necessarily all theology... just all the theology I've ever encountered. If you have better stuff tucked away, feel free to share.

Quote:
Otherwise, it's you who have no basis for the discussion of God in any real terms, because God can only be rationally discussed through theological means.
I thought you wanted to get back to the point of the discussion. Why are you trying to pull us off into a snipe hunt about "theological" arguments?

Present a sound argument - theological or not - and I'll accept it. Otherwise, don't be surprised if I don't.

from carrying on, ad nauseum, as you seem to be intent on doing. Garrulousness seems to be an effective ploy for you to get your opponents to shut up. It covers a multitude of nasty pitfalls, such as having to actually answer questions that are put to you.

Here was what I asked you to do:

Since you seem to hold to this notion that God is "simply another player in the game," lay out exactly how you arrive at this theological position. From there we can proceed.

Can you answer that, or do you know? Is this just some sort of troll-type statement, made purely for its provocative qualities?

Wow... you really latched onto that particular phrase, didn't you? It wasn't an argument; it was just a quick way to describe a part of my position.

Yes, I did, because it says tons about what you really think (I'm assuming). And it presents a particular theological concept of God that seems to want to "level the playing field" between God and humanity.

But let's back up and think about responsibility in general: what do you think makes an entity (e.g. a human being) responsible - or culpable - for his/her/its actions?

No, let's back up and have you answer the question I put to you first (see above).

Not necessarily all theology... just all the theology I've ever encountered.

Perhaps you could enumerate these, so that we know precisely what you're talking about?

I thought you wanted to get back to the point of the discussion.

Yup. That's why I asked you the question that you have yet to address.

Why are you trying to pull us off into a snipe hunt about "theological" arguments?

Because the OP presents a theological premise that has to be addressed theologically! Duh!

Present a sound argument

You first. Give us some sound theological backing for your claim (which lies at the heart of your argument) that "God is just another player in the game."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everything boils down to that question I asked you: what makes an entity responsible or culpable?

What makes a person potentially culpable, but not a cabbage (to borrow from your analogy)?

Is our responsibility limited only to the consequences we intend, or to any that we foresee? Is it limited to only our own direct actions, or do we also share in the responsibility for the actions of others we enable?

These questions are difficult, but as far as I can see:

- any reasonable definition of "responsible" I can know implies that an intelligent being who is capable of appreciating the outcome (or likely outcome) of his/her/its actions and can choose between outcomes is responsible for the consequences that flow from those choices... or at least the net difference in consequence between the available choices.

- when we're trying to decide what consequences flow from a choice, we look at the difference in what would occur if the choice was made versus if it wasn't (or if some other option was chosen). Sometimes, another intelligent agent might be instrumental in that difference (e.g. saving a lone doctor's life might mean saving many lives, since your act would enable the doctor to keep saving other people), but this doesn't change the overall principle; it's just that in a human context, the actions of those intelligent agents are sometimes unpredictable.

That's what I think creates responsibility and culpability:

- appreciation of the consequences of one's actions
- ability to understand and choose between courses of action
- the will and ability to carry out the selected course of action

I don't know what version of God you worship, but the versions of God presented to me by the vast majority of believers are purported to be capable of doing all these things.

If you have a different model of how responsibility works, please share.

 

[cottage]

Setting aside for a moment my disagreements with the language of blame and fault, this seems pretty straightforward to me.

This situation isn't any different from parents and their child. If a man and woman have a child, and that child commits a crime, the parents are not held responsible for the child's crime. If their child is still a minor, they are likely to be involved (or responsible for) disciplinary action against their child, but they are not considered to be responsible for the crime itself. They aren't.

I agree. Although the Parent/Child analogy is also frequently used to defend the existence of evil, where it is said that God is like the parent who may have to subject a child to an element of suffering in order for it to learn and be aware of life’s pitfalls. But that analogy makes two misleading assumptions: it assumes that the world, as it is, must exist, and that God is like man. Suffering is a feature of our world and parents have no option but to deal with it the best they can. But it is clearly mistaken to say an omnipotent God had no option but to create the world as we know it. For if God is the absolutely necessary Being (which some say he is by definition), then neither suffering nor the world itself exist necessarily but purely by his will alone.

Defenders of the parent/child analogy might say ‘Must a parent be responsible for every transgression the child makes in its life?’ A fair question! For while the parents brought about the existence of the child, it can be argued that the parents themselves were caused by God and are essentially no different from their offspring in that respect. They too are finite, temporal, error-prone creatures. Therefore the parents cannot be held directly responsible for the child’s every action. And that must be correct, because if God is the Creator, the first cause and the cause of all subsequent causes, the parents themselves must be a contingent effect. But if God is an immanent being, the cause of all causes and one who conserves and sustains every minute of our existence, then it follows that every minute of that existence lies under God’s causal power and knowledge. In other words, if it is true that we cannot exist without God’s sustaining power and awareness, then it is also true that we cannot act independently of it.

 

[sojourner]

Everything boils down to that question I asked you: what makes an entity responsible or culpable?

What makes a person potentially culpable, but not a cabbage (to borrow from your analogy)?

Is our responsibility limited only to the consequences we intend, or to any that we foresee? Is it limited to only our own direct actions, or do we also share in the responsibility for the actions of others we enable?

These questions are difficult, but as far as I can see:

- any reasonable definition of "responsible" I can know implies that an intelligent being who is capable of appreciating the outcome (or likely outcome) of his/her/its actions and can choose between outcomes is responsible for the consequences that flow from those choices... or at least the net difference in consequence between the available choices.

- when we're trying to decide what consequences flow from a choice, we look at the difference in what would occur if the choice was made versus if it wasn't (or if some other option was chosen). Sometimes, another intelligent agent might be instrumental in that difference (e.g. saving a lone doctor's life might mean saving many lives, since your act would enable the doctor to keep saving other people), but this doesn't change the overall principle; it's just that in a human context, the actions of those intelligent agents are sometimes unpredictable.

That's what I think creates responsibility and culpability:

- appreciation of the consequences of one's actions
- ability to understand and choose between courses of action
- the will and ability to carry out the selected course of action

I don't know what version of God you worship, but the versions of God presented to me by the vast majority of believers are purported to be capable of doing all these things.

If you have a different model of how responsibility works, please share.

Cliffs Notes translation: :ignore: "Blah, blah, blah -- I'm going to carry on, completely ignoring the question I've been asked."

You're incorrect. Everything really boils down to how we describe God. I know how you describe God. I'd like to know by what reasoning you have arrived at that description.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. Although the Parent/Child analogy is also frequently used to defend the existence of evil, where it is said that God is like the parent who may have to subject a child to an element of suffering in order for it to learn and be aware of life’s pitfalls. But that analogy makes two misleading assumptions: it assumes that the world, as it is, must exist, and that God is like man. Suffering is a feature of our world and parents have no option but to deal with it the best they can. But it is clearly mistaken to say an omnipotent God had no option but to create the world as we know it. For if God is the absolutely necessary Being (which some say he is by definition), then neither suffering nor the world itself exist necessarily but purely by his will alone.

Defenders of the parent/child analogy might say ‘Must a parent be responsible for every transgression the child makes in its life?’ A fair question! For while the parents brought about the existence of the child, it can be argued that the parents themselves were caused by God and are essentially no different from their offspring in that respect. They too are finite, temporal, error-prone creatures. Therefore the parents cannot be held directly responsible for the child’s every action. And that must be correct, because if God is the Creator, the first cause and the cause of all subsequent causes, the parents themselves must be a contingent effect. But if God is an immanent being, the cause of all causes and one who conserves and sustains every minute of our existence, then it follows that every minute of that existence lies under God’s causal power and knowledge. In other words, if it is true that we cannot exist without God’s sustaining power and awareness, then it is also true that we cannot act independently of it.

Even if we consider ourselves autonomous, there's still an issue: foreknowledge. The reason that the parents of a mass murderer aren't implicated in their child's crime is that a person's actions as an adult are completely unpredictable when the baby is an infant or before he's conceived. If some super-parent could look into the future and realize that their child would grow up to be a murderous monster but decided to have him anyway, then that parent would have his child's victims' blood on his hands.

 

[idav]

Cliffs Notes translation: :ignore: "Blah, blah, blah -- I'm going to carry on, completely ignoring the question I've been asked."

You're incorrect. Everything really boils down to how we describe God. I know how you describe God. I'd like to know by what reasoning you have arrived at that description.

Its by gods power we can do evil or good. Does god not care to stop evil?

 

[sojourner]

Its by gods power we can do evil or good. Does god not care to stop evil?

Apparently, our right to choose is part of what it means to be the imago dei. Since that's how God created us, God respects our sovereignty enough to let us "sit in our own soup."

But think about it in larger terms: If God is our world, our life, our existence -- the field upon which we manifest God-life in human terms -- of what real significance is such a concept that we call "evil?" Sure, it bothers us on a temporal and immediate scale, but what about in the grand scheme of eternity and our insignificant selves in relation to God? Not to sound callous, but if a loved one dies from murder -- in the grand scheme of things -- so what? What has really happened? A particular conglomeration of matter and energy has simply reverted back into the cosmos from whence it came. Nothing has been "lost," other than our immediate apprehension of it as "unique." The loved one has simply (in poetic and theological language) "gone to Abraham's bosom."

God has no need to "stop it," because, in God's perspective, it's ultimately meaningless. Love demands that we abhor the suffering of others, but what meaning does suffering have outside the immediate? God's "acts" in the midst of suffering and evil come in the form of human compassion and mercy. That's also part of what it means to be the imago dei.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cliffs Notes translation: :ignore: "Blah, blah, blah -- I'm going to carry on, completely ignoring the question I've been asked."

That's right - I'm trying to focus on productive discussion and not the side show you're trying to drag me into.

You're incorrect. Everything really boils down to how we describe God. I know how you describe God. I'd like to know by what reasoning you have arrived at that description.

If you'd calm down and read more carefully, you would realize that I just told you how in my last post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently, our right to choose is part of what it means to be the imago dei. Since that's how God created us, God respects our sovereignty enough to let us "sit in our own soup."

A few years back, I was driving down the highway when I spotted a car pulled over on the shoulder with smoke billowing from under the hood. I carry a fire extinguisher in my car, so I stopped to help. We called 911 and I jumped out with my extinguisher.

I quickly saw that the fire was the result of an oil leak. I emptied my fire extinguisher at the fire, but it wasn't enough to put it out. I probably could have finished the job with a second extinguisher, but I didn't have one and none of the cars passing by stopped to help us.

All I could do was help the guy remove as much of his stuff from the car as we could before the fire spread to the cabin, which it did. During this time, I realized that the fire could very well have been the driver's fault: it could easily have been caused by neglecting maintenance or by a shoddy repair. Regardless, I thought the right thing to do was help.

By the time the fire department arrived, the car was consumed.

At the time, it really bothered me that nobody stopped, but now I realize that you're right: my intervention disrespected that man's autonomy, and the drivers who whizzed by without stopping were doing the right thing. Thank you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God's "acts" in the midst of suffering and evil come in the form of human compassion and mercy. That's also part of what it means to be the imago dei.

BTW: that's precisely the sort of hypocrisy that I was talking about earlier. When we're talking about negative things, God isn't to blame because "free will" supposedly creates a moral distance between God's acts and their consequences. When we're talking about positive things done by humans, they're "acts of God". I remember you saying before that you didn't do this; apparently, you were wrong.

 

[sojourner]

That's right - I'm trying to focus on productive discussion and not the side show you're trying to drag me into.

"Productive discussion" entails some kind of theological grounding with such as topic as this.
A theological grounding does not entail a "side show." Unless you have no theological grounding, that is.

If you'd calm down and read more carefully, you would realize that I just told you how in my last post.

No, you didn't. You didn't at all address how you arrive at the conclusion that "God is simply another player in the game." You presented no theology at all, in fact.

Try again.

 

[sojourner]

A few years back, I was driving down the highway when I spotted a car pulled over on the shoulder with smoke billowing from under the hood. I carry a fire extinguisher in my car, so I stopped to help. We called 911 and I jumped out with my extinguisher.

I quickly saw that the fire was the result of an oil leak. I emptied my fire extinguisher at the fire, but it wasn't enough to put it out. I probably could have finished the job with a second extinguisher, but I didn't have one and none of the cars passing by stopped to help us.

All I could do was help the guy remove as much of his stuff from the car as we could before the fire spread to the cabin, which it did. During this time, I realized that the fire could very well have been the driver's fault: it could easily have been caused by neglecting maintenance or by a shoddy repair. Regardless, I thought the right thing to do was help.

By the time the fire department arrived, the car was consumed.

At the time, it really bothered me that nobody stopped, but now I realize that you're right: my intervention disrespected that man's autonomy, and the drivers who whizzed by without stopping were doing the right thing. Thank you.

Huh. Way to completely misrepresent what I said. I also went on to say that God's action is manifest in the form of human compassion and mercy. Which was what you displayed when you helped him.

Epic fail, here, Penguin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Productive discussion" entails some kind of theological grounding with such as topic as this.
A theological grounding does not entail a "side show." Unless you have no theological grounding, that is.

No, you didn't. You didn't at all address how you arrive at the conclusion that "God is simply another player in the game." You presented no theology at all, in fact.

Try again.

I'm not playing this game with you. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, there's more than enough for you to respond to. If you want to have a tantrum, you'll have to do it by yourself.

 

[sojourner]

BTW: that's precisely the sort of hypocrisy that I was talking about earlier. When we're talking about negative things, God isn't to blame because "free will" supposedly creates a moral distance between God's acts and their consequences. When we're talking about positive things done by humans, they're "acts of God". I remember you saying before that you didn't do this; apparently, you were wrong.

What then, is your theological reason for God not being present in positive human action? Is God, or is God not present in positive human action? And please include the reasons for your conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What then, is your theological reason for God not being present in positive human action? Is God, or is God not present in positive human action? And please include the reasons for your conclusion.

A question about your terminology: by "God is present in", do you mean "God is responsible for"?

 

[sojourner]

I'm not playing this game with you. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, there's more than enough for you to respond to. If you want to have a tantrum, you'll have to do it by yourself.

I'm not throwing a tantrum. I'm trying to pin you down to your theological reasons for your statements, such as "God is simply another player in the game," and "God is not present through positive human action." That doesn't constitute a "tantrum." It does constitute theological discussion.

But "[You] don't want to play [that] game with [me]?" Sooo... you've thrown in on a theological discussion, but you won't discuss theologically? This is tantamount to, "I wanna play Monopoly, but I don't wanna buy and sell property, use play money, or move my token around a board."