Responsibility

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
Besides which, if one has an issue with such then it is upon them to prove beyond any doubt that those killed are not in fact better off than if they had been allowed to live. Go ahead Mag, I'll try not to hold my breath in anticipation.

Byblos, couldn't this same argument be used for justification of abortion?

No because only God is omniscient. Other than God, no one knows who is better off dead and who isn't.

I agree that only God is omniscient. But don't people who have abortions, and even some who committ suicide, make that same judgement, that they'd be better off dead? And, in at least some of the cases, they may be right.

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:
Besides which, if one has an issue with such then it is upon them to prove beyond any doubt that those killed are not in fact better off than if they had been allowed to live. Go ahead Mag, I'll try not to hold my breath in anticipation.

Byblos, couldn't this same argument be used for justification of abortion?

No because only God is omniscient. Other than God, no one knows who is better off dead and who isn't.

I agree that only God is omniscient. But don't people who have abortions, and even some who committ suicide, make that same judgement, that they'd be better off dead? And, in at least some of the cases, they may be right.

Yes they do. The difference is that they have no way of knowing whether or not they actually are (better off) until it's too late. Better to not speculate with matters of eternal consequences.

[PaulSacramento]

Byblos wrote:
Besides which, if one has an issue with such then it is upon them to prove beyond any doubt that those killed are not in fact better off than if they had been allowed to live. Go ahead Mag, I'll try not to hold my breath in anticipation.

Byblos, couldn't this same argument be used for justification of abortion?

No because only God is omniscient. Other than God, no one knows who is better off dead and who isn't.

I agree that only God is omniscient. But don't people who have abortions, and even some who committ suicide, make that same judgement, that they'd be better off dead? And, in at least some of the cases, they may be right.

If God is GOD and the authour and sustainer of Life then even our OWN life is not just ours, but a gift given by God and owed to God.
A fetus is a gist given from God and for anyone to destroy that gift, it is an affront to God.
If God wants that Spirit back, He will take it when the time comes, when HE chooses.
Same thing for our own lives.
Of course if one doesn't believe in God or in God THAT way, well then...

[MAGSolo]

neo-x » Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:58 pm

God intervened when he struck down Ananias and Sapphira for claiming they had given all the money from a sold property to the church when they hadnt.


So you believe the event actually happened the way its described?

Again I ask Mag, do you believe that the event of Ananias and Sapphira actually happened, and is true?

I dont know. I dont have any confidence that anything in the bible was an actual factual event but I dont know that they werent either.

[neo-x]

there r only two choices, if its true and there is a god then ur going to be in trouble, if its false and there ia no god then u can not accuse an imaginary being of something that never took place, kind of silly wudnt u agree?

[ultimate777]

Paul that is a terrible answer. God doesnt prevent or stop evil because its not his job to babysit us? Is this the God that is watching over us, that we are supposed to worship and praise; one who doesnt stop evil because its not his job? It seems the more you talk about God the less you make him sound like a God deserving of worship and praise.

I guess I get it - you logic says - Magsolo killed a man and is not responsible for this act, however, God is responsible for not stopping Magsolo murderous act. So Magsolo is a poor innocent victim of the cruelty of God.

Does Magsolo go free, then?
-
-
-

I think the logic is more like this.

There is a police officer tasked with guarding the lives of citizens who is on duty. In front of him is a person. A murderer comes up to that person and says to the officer, "I am going to kill this person." and waits 5 minutes. The officer does nothing but watch as this person kills them while being fully able to have prevented it. Why? To stop him would be a violation of that person's free will and rights under the law. The murderer is still guilty, but God was fully able to have saved this person's life - the murderer is only punished after the fact. This is more analogous to the situation he described.

Again, not really into the problem of evil and not saying I agree with this, but there's no reason to misrepresent his words either.

Man, I missed this post until now, July the effen 18th! Wonderful post!!

[ultimate777]

....That is not what I am saying at all. This is what I am saying: Suppose I see you somewhere with your wife or girlfriend out having a good time when a group of guys decides to start making trouble with you.

There are a good number of them and they are simply up to no good and you try your best to defend your wife/gf but are soon overpowered at which point some of the guys start mercilessly beating you to a pulp while the rest begin to ruthlessly beat and rape your wife/gf. Clearly these guys are responsible for their actions.

Now the thing is I am watching these events unfold from the beginning. Not only am I witnessing them but I have several items at my disposal that I could use to help. I have a gun and I could either shoot a few shots in the air to get the attackers to stop and flee or I could actually shoot at them to really drive my point home. I also have a cell phone so if nothing else I could at least call the police.

But I dont take my gun out, I dont dial 911, I dont yell at the attackers to stop, I dont yell or look for help, I just watch while you are beaten to a pulp and your wife/gf is beaten and repeatedly raped. I dont refuse to intervene because I am afraid, I simply dont think its my responsibility to prevent this from happening even though I could very likely stop it from happening.

Am I completely blameless in this series of events? Suppose someone where to ask me why I didnt do anything at all even though I had the ability to aid in some way, and I responded that its not my job to babysit people hold their hand so they dont do bad things. What would you think of me? Im not saying the perpetrators are not responsible, but I am asking do I not bear some responsibility for my inaction or is my inaction completely blameless and faultless?

Paul’s’ answer below is sufficient:

Where in the bible does it say that God is the "police officer" of Earth?

I recall it saying that HUMANS are the stewards of creation and that means protectors of all of creation ( which includes themselves of course).

Seems to me that people DO want God to fix our mistakes and I am not sure why.

Yes, there is a promise of a future time when God will do just that, BUT what is also made clear is that even after that is done, some will still rebel.

Seems like people want an omnipotent dictator that forces people to behave, which is odd because when God does do that in the OT, He gets criticized for that.

Paul's answer is sufficent, so sufficently repulsive horse dung he can never erase the stench.

[PaulSacramento]

Rather uncalled for.
There are many an atheistic or skeptical view and comment that disturbs me ( Harris comment on Rape VS religion is one for example) and yet, I try my best to be civil and understand that POV.
You may not LIKE an answer to your question, but that doesn't make the answer any less valid.

[RickD]

ultimate777 wrote:
Paul's answer is sufficent, so sufficently repulsive horse dung he can never erase the stench.

I can think of something else you might find repulsive, U777. You might even find it "foolish".

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

It's all in one's perspective.

[neo-x]

Paul's answer is sufficent, so sufficently repulsive horse dung he can never erase the stench.

Well thank you for your kind words, we tend to have them when the other guys, like you are out of a good argument. By the way you might wanna look into the quality of your posts as well before you go all Chuck Norris on someone else'.

[ultimate777]

Thanks.

We always have to ask ourselves, how much do we want God to intervene?
I mean, where do we draw the line?
Should God only intervene when death is on the line? what about adultery or homosexuality or S&M or Bondage? what about an abortion?
How should God intervene? Should he just "zap" the POTENTIAL sinner? ( remember that NO SIN or evil act has been commited yet)
Since God knows all, should he just prevent any potential sinner from being born?
Should he wipe out an entire race or group pf people because he knows ( and we don't of course) what they will do?
How would we judge God then?
Imagine God wiping out millions of Germans in 1932 so that the Nazi's would never have happened, what would people think since the Nazi attrocites would NEVER have been commited all that anyone would have know was that God wiped out millions of people for NO REASON that we know of.

[ultimate777]

Thanks.

We always have to ask ourselves, how much do we want God to intervene?
I mean, where do we draw the line?
Should God only intervene when death is on the line? what about adultery or homosexuality or S&M or Bondage? what about an abortion?
How should God intervene? Should he just "zap" the POTENTIAL sinner? ( remember that NO SIN or evil act has been commited yet)
Since God knows all, should he just prevent any potential sinner from being born?
Should he wipe out an entire race or group pf people because he knows ( and we don't of course) what they will do?
How would we judge God then?
Imagine God wiping out millions of Germans in 1932 so that the Nazi's would never have happened, what would people think since the Nazi attrocites would NEVER have been commited all that anyone would have know was that God wiped out millions of people for NO REASON that we know of.

IIIRC some Jewish prisoners at a death camp had a mock trial of God. I saw a TV drama of it. When and Where unknown.
Verdict guilty.

[RickD]

Thanks.

We always have to ask ourselves, how much do we want God to intervene?
I mean, where do we draw the line?
Should God only intervene when death is on the line? what about adultery or homosexuality or S&M or Bondage? what about an abortion?
How should God intervene? Should he just "zap" the POTENTIAL sinner? ( remember that NO SIN or evil act has been commited yet)
Since God knows all, should he just prevent any potential sinner from being born?
Should he wipe out an entire race or group pf people because he knows ( and we don't of course) what they will do?
How would we judge God then?
Imagine God wiping out millions of Germans in 1932 so that the Nazi's would never have happened, what would people think since the Nazi attrocites would NEVER have been commited all that anyone would have know was that God wiped out millions of people for NO REASON that we know of.

IIIRC some Jewish prisoners at a death camp had a mock trial of God. I saw a TV drama of it. When and Where unknown.
Verdict guilty.

If it was made into a TV drama, then it must be true.

[ultimate777]

ultimate777 wrote:
Paul's answer is sufficent, so sufficently repulsive horse dung he can never erase the stench.

I can think of something else you might find repulsive, U777. You might even find it "foolish".

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

It's all in one's perspective.

So, you say I am foolish and not saved, hmm?

I am so scared, you have relieved God of His Judgeship and condemned me.

If you are not saying I am condemned, what does "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing"
have to do with me?

[ultimate777]

Rather uncalled for.
There are many an atheistic or skeptical view and comment that disturbs me ( Harris comment on Rape VS religion is one for example) and yet, I try my best to be civil and understand that POV.
You may not LIKE an answer to your question, but that doesn't make the answer any less valid.

I seem to be the only one around here that ever admits I made a mistake. Does that mean I am the only one who makes mistakes?

I mistook that Paul had bragged on himself that that what he said was sufficient. Which I thought was incredible arrogance on his part than did not deserve any consideration.
I see now that I was wrong. That is, he did not brag on himself.

If one never fails one never tries.