Why would God's ultimate power come with ultimate responsibility?

[Trailblazer]

Morality applies to all thinking agents.

Is your God not a thinking agent?

Look up all the definitions of morality. None of them say that morality applies to all thinking agents.

Moreover, morality applies to behavior and God does not have behavior. Only humans have behavior.

 

[Trailblazer]

The same reasons anyone can be responsible for others' actions.

An illustrative example: say you somehow knew that your neighbour would commit murder if he ever got hold of a gun.

You leave a gun on your front lawn, knowing that your neighbour will find it. He finds it and kills someone with it.

Would you bear responsibility for the murder?

Comparing God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Comparing God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

Now google "special pleading," because that's what you're doing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now google "special pleading," because that's what you're doing.

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for an argument to work, a proponent needs to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — Special pleading

No, it is not special pleasing because I provided proper justification for why my case deserves an exemption:

Comparing God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for an argument to work, a proponent needs to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — Special pleading

No, it is not special pleasing because I provided proper justification for why my case deserves an exemption:

Comparing God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human.

Just as I said: special pleading.

For you not to be engaging in special pleading, you would need to justify why God not being human is relevant to anything we're talking about.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why call the being God if it has no authority, power, and responsibility toward humans? That being would be entirely meaningless to anyone alive if it had no relationship to humans.

Why would God have responsibilities towards humans? God is not a human parent who is responsible for his children.
Why would God be meaningless unless God had a relationship to humans? You must think humans are pretty important.

Ultimate power, otoh, if moral toward other life necessitates total responsibility in using any ultimate power. If ultimate power is never wielded then Godhood is moot. Not an issue.

So you would not want God to withhold the power he has to eliminate all of creation in one instant?

To be a God is to be in authority and actively involved in the lives of those who owe responsibility to that God in a just way.

God is in authority but God is not responsible to be actively involved in our lives.
Whatever we get from God is from grace alone, not because God owes us anything.

Power and authority are not the same thing. Authority is about just and true responsibility. Power can be used to rule in a malevolent way, and without any moral consideration nor any regard for anyone's well being.

Who decides what is just or good, us or God?

I can't imagine calling any being God if there's no proof, nor evidence of authority, and responsible relationship toward humans. If ultimate power alone is the requirement to be God, then I would never give credence to such a God.

No, there is no proof, but there is evidence that God cares about humans, the Messengers He sends, but that is not because God is responsible to send them, it is only by the grace of God that He sends them.

It is not as if God is going to a job interview in order to qualify to be God. God does not need to meet requirements in order to be God. God is what God is.

That said, I understand your point. God is not only all-powerful, that is only one of many of God's attributes.

As it is Omni Gods are imaginary. And I've never met a genuine God, nor have I heard any truth of one.

And you never will meet God, none of us ever will.

The sole purpose of morality is to make life worth living, and to form relationships on the basis of deserve, and trustworthiness. An immoral God is not a God at all. And having no responsibility to others isn't worth any reverence.

The sole purpose of morality is to make life worth living, and to form relationships on the basis of deserve, and trustworthiness, but that only applies to humans, not to God. God is not subject to being moral because God is not a human that has a character and behaviors. God simply is what God is. Humans have responsibilities towards other humans but God is not responsible or accountable to humans.

You talk about God as if God was a human. That can never work because God is not a human with human character traits and behaviors. God has a mind but God's mind is not like a human mind. God has a will that causes things to happen but God has no behaviors.

 

[Trailblazer]

For you not to be engaging in special pleading, you would need to justify why God not being human is relevant to anything we're talking about.

It is relevant because God is not a human, so God cannot be expected to think and act like a human.
Likewise, humans are not God, so humans cannot be expected to think and act like God.

Why would God be responsible for human actions?

9-10ths_Penguin said:
The same reasons anyone can be responsible for others' actions.

An illustrative example: say you somehow knew that your neighbour would commit murder if he ever got hold of a gun.

You leave a gun on your front lawn, knowing that your neighbour will find it. He finds it and kills someone with it.

Would you bear responsibility for the murder?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is relevant because God is not a human, so God cannot be expected to think and act like a human.

God can't be expected to behave morally?

 

[Trailblazer]

God can't be expected to behave morally?

No, absolutely not. Given who God is having any expectations of God is illogical.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

 

[Trailblazer]

God can't be expected to behave morally?

God does not have behavior, so God does not behave. God wills things and then they happen according to His will.

 

[Truthseeker]

This applies to cases where a person could either get life in prison or the death penalty for the same crime. Remember, Baha'u'llah sais that the UHJ could choose to impose either one.

I don't know what that one means. I don't think, though, the UHJ would be deciding the penalty for a case. It may be Baha'u'llah is giving them flexibility to have a death penalty imposed in one era, and life in prison on the other. Remember, The UHJ has the authority to have one law at one time, and a different one at another, if not prescribed by Baha'u'llah for the entire duration of the Baha'i era. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying, though. I'm tired right now, not at the top of my game.

I think it was Abdu'l-Baha who said that if a person gets the death sentence a second penalty won't be imposed by God.
I looked for the quote but I cannot find it right now, sorry.

Yes, I know that passage exists. No need to quote it. I found it:

As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be, the answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime: that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime, and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for divine justice would not allow this.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 178)

That leaves open, what about punishments for other crimes? I think it would be the same. If the correct penalty is imposed, there would be no 2nd penalty. However if in one era for the same crime the death penalty is imposed, and in another era of time life imprisonment is imposed, what sense does that make? I never thought of that before now. I conclude in a state of befuddlement.

 

[Trailblazer]

As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be, the answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime: that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime, and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for divine justice would not allow this.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 178)

Yes, that is the one.

 

[McBell]

Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game. We are each responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.

Sometimes, the foreseeable consequence of one person's action is that someone will commit some secondary action. In those cases, both people bear responsibility for the secondary action.

Seems to me that would be a bit problematic for an "all knowing" entity...

Unless of course there was some sort of loop hole...

 

[McBell]

... God is never the defendant in any court of law.

Lawsuits Against God

Lawsuits against God have occurred in real life and in fiction. Issues debated in the actions include the problem of evil and harmful "acts of God".

encyclopedia.pub

 

[McBell]

God can't be expected to behave morally?

Well, if god does not even have behavior,,,

 

[HonestJoe]

I do break some rules of my religion but I have never been much for rules, and I detest religious dogma that tells me what I am supposed to believe.

I didn't say "rules", I said "fundamental aspects". The core concepts of humans having free-will, God wanting us to use it to act in particular ways and then rewarding or punishing us in some way as a consequence simply don't work in the context of the all-knowing and all-powerful God.

We can't have true free will if something out there is all-powerful and a being can't have wants or needs without being within linear time.

 

[Ajax]

Why would all powerful be responsible of actions that are done by some other beings? No logical reason to think so.

Because he knows how he "created" each one of us, according to the religion..See also my next answer...

God gave us freedom..... But, do you really think God should not allow people to be free?

There is no freedom, when you are threatened with everlasting torture if you disobey him.

As for the free will...

Acts 13:48 "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Eph.1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."

2 Tim.1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."

Jude 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."

Did you have your boarding pass to Paradise before birth?

 

[1213]

Why would it be God's job or duty to deal with those?

No, I don't think that God is responsible for evil people since those are choices those people make.

God could remove all evil people. And so He is responsible of removing or not removing them. But, removing all evil people would not necessary be a good thing at the moment.

But what about these verses?

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

The way I interpret those verses Jesus was saying to deny our selfish desires, things we want that are not of God, and to follow in His Way. For whoever will live for self shall lose his eternal life, but whoever will sacrifice his life for the sake of Jesus and God shall gain eternal life. It is the soul that gets eternal life, not the body.

I think that is a good point. In Christian point of view we should not worry about earthly things. This is only a temporary lesson, not the true life.

I believe that people who suffer through no fault of their own will be compensated in the afterlife, but I am not sure what will happen to people who brought on their own suffering. I don't think their compensation will be as much as for those who were not responsible for their own suffering.

I don't know either, but I believe God is good and whatever He will do, will also be good.

I do not think I brought on my own suffering, and the numerous counselors and psychologists I have seen over a number of years agree that what happened was not my fault. For anyone who has suffered, especially for people like me who have suffered a lot for most of their lives, there is the following passage, and there are probably similar verses in the Bible:

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

I think that is in line with Biblical teachings. There are many examples of people who have suffered, without just cause. For example Jesus suffered greatly. But, it was all compensated to him. it may be that people have to suffer in this life. It would be good, if we our self would not cause suffering to others.

 

[1213]

Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game. We are each responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.

Sometimes, the foreseeable consequence of one person's action is that someone will commit some secondary action. In those cases, both people bear responsibility for the secondary action.

There are good things that should be done, that can lead and make possible bad things. For example it is good that God gave freedom. Unfortunately with freedom there comes also possibility for bad things. I think it would be evil not to allow people to be free, even though it can lead to bad things.

Other example is, if a doctor heals a person, who after that kills someone. Should doctors not heal people, because some of them will do bad things?

I think people and God should do good, even if some will do bad things.

 

[Ajax]

God wills things and then they happen according to His will.

That's a bit dangerous my friend.. It means you agree with my quoted verses in message #57