So, who is responsible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God simply makes people that will freely choose to obey him.
How is that in any way freedom? That’s the same logic as Henry Ford saying that people could have their Model T in whatever colour they wanted…as long as it was black.
God designs some people with the knowledge that they will freely obey him and some people that will freely disobey him.
Actually, God made all people knowing that we will *all *choose to disobey him. All of us are sinners and that means, as hard as we may try, each and every one of us disobey him in some way every single day of our lives.
 
God holds creation together.
But we are still responsible for what we do in it.
You forgot #70. God actively participates in all of our actions. Whatever we intend to do is carried out by God. I could wish to kill someone, but my wish would be in vain, if God did not maintain my muscles to pull that trigger, then maintain the bullet on its course, and maintain the kinetic energy of the bullet to enter the body. There is an interesting corollary to this process. We, the free agents, use the immutable God to carry out our wishes. God is just a “puppet of a string”. We make a decision, and God jumps, and maintains our muscles to carry it out. 🙂
 
You forgot #70. God actively participates in all of our actions. Whatever we intend to do is carried out by God. I could wish to kill someone, but my wish would be in vain, if God did not maintain my muscles to pull that trigger, then maintain the bullet on its course, and maintain the kinetic energy of the bullet to enter the body. There is an interesting corollary to this process. We, the free agents, use the immutable God to carry out our wishes. God is just a “puppet of a string”. We make a decision, and God jumps, and maintains our muscles to carry it out. 🙂
You don’t escape responsibility though, as you must die and account for what you did, Spock. You cannot say He made you do it. You willed it freely and as God willed everything freely into being and maintains everything freely by His will God must pay the price for willing only good in His creation. God must die for creating things freely and God has died to save what He created. And you must pay the price also for willing to destroy what He created, you must die also as He did. Unfortunately you will not be able to live with the creator of what you destroyed when you die, you will run and hide in hell and be lost forever.
😦
 
You don’t escape responsibility though, as you must die and account for what you did, Spock.
All I did (in that hypothetical scenario) is to want to pull that trigger. God did all the rest.
 
All I did (in that hypothetical scenario) is to want to pull that trigger. God did all the rest.
All you did was will to pull the trigger…

You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. [22] But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.
 
Stop. Making. Threads.
Or at least, if you are going to make more threads, please make them reasonable Spock. I always respect what you say, but this one is not reasonable.
Whaddaya mean? I thought they were always the same!
All I’ve got to say is, “Haven’t we seen this one before?”
Check out forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=523404

Back then it was Spock’s assertion that God is responsible for the evil that Satan commits, and the only real difference this time around is that Spock is instead using an example with a psychopath. Maybe he should have stuck with that earlier debate rather than dropping out of it and just re-hashing the whole thing from scratch in a new thread.
 
40.png
seagal:
How is that in any way freedom? That’s the same logic as Henry Ford saying that people could have their Model T in whatever colour they wanted…as long as it was black.
Ah, close, but not quite. What I’m trying to say is that Henry Ford does indeed allow everyone to have their Model T in whatever color they want; it doesn’t have to be black. However, it just so happens that everyone wants a black Model T!

This is where I haven’t completely hashed out my line of thought yet, but I think it makes sense so far. In a nutshell, we have free will, but we also have many natural propensities towards certain thoughts and behaviors. Some people seem predisposed to be more “good” while others are predisposed to be more “evil,” regardless of what we consider to be “good.” So, just on that point, if “free will” exists, then it can clearly be reconciled with quite significant predispositions. So, it seems to me that, under our assumptions, God could keep free will and reduce a lot of sin just by creating people that are more likely to do more good.
40.png
seagal:
Actually, God made all people knowing that we will all choose to disobey him. All of us are sinners and that means, as hard as we may try, each and every one of us disobey him in some way every single day of our lives.
Yes, right, that is the accepted dogma. Eh, I think what I said in that post was misleading. I think what I wrote in this post explains it a little better. I’ll elaborate a bit more.

From post #39 - “Everyone may be a sinner, but it can’t be denied that some people are a lot worse than others. Not everyone is a rapist. Not everyone is a child molester. People are not born as blank slates; even if it is a “free choice,” different people will choose different things.”

So, I don’t mean a dichotomy between people that are 100% obedient to God and people that always disobey God, but rather a difference of degree; maybe a continuity of sinfulness? Heh.
 
Ah, close, but not quite. What I’m trying to say is that Henry Ford does indeed allow everyone to have their Model T in whatever color they want; it doesn’t have to be black. However, it just so happens that everyone wants a black Model T!

This is where I haven’t completely hashed out my line of thought yet, but I think it makes sense so far. In a nutshell, we have free will, but we also have many natural propensities towards certain thoughts and behaviors. Some people seem predisposed to be more “good” while others are predisposed to be more “evil,” regardless of what we consider to be “good.” So, just on that point, if “free will” exists, then it can clearly be reconciled with quite significant predispositions. So, it seems to me that, under our assumptions, **God could keep free will and reduce a lot of sin just by creating people that are more likely to do more good. **

Yes, right, that is the accepted dogma. Eh, I think what I said in that post was misleading. I think what I wrote in this post explains it a little better. I’ll elaborate a bit more.

From post #39 - “Everyone may be a sinner, but it can’t be denied that some people are a lot worse than others. Not everyone is a rapist. Not everyone is a child molester. People are not born as blank slates; even if it is a “free choice,” different people will choose different things.”

So, I don’t mean a dichotomy between people that are 100% obedient to God and people that always disobey God, but rather a difference of degree; maybe a continuity of sinfulness? Heh.
What you aren’t seeing is that what you suggest is not free will, no matter how you phrase it. Jesus was once asked what the greatest commandment is.
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’**(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#fen-NIV-23912b”)] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
 
[Hit the send button by mistake :o]

As I was saying, when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment is (Matthew 22:36-40 ) he replied:

37 “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’**(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#fen-NIV-23912b”)] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What this means to me is that loving God is the greatest thing you can do. It follows that the greatest sin is to not love God. Not loving your neighbour is a close second. So to follow your thought, God would not allow atheists to be created, which would mean that you would have to believe in him whether you thought it was logical or the most ridiculous thing you ever heard. You would not have the freedom of making up your own mind.
 
What this means to me is that loving God is the greatest thing you can do. It follows that the greatest sin is to not love God. Not loving your neighbour is a close second. So to follow your thought, God would not allow atheists to be created, which would mean that you would have to believe in him whether you thought it was logical or the most ridiculous thing you ever heard. You would not have the freedom of making up your own mind.
Many errors in this reasoning.
  1. What does it mean that “God would not ALLOW atheists to be created?” Isn’t it God who does the creation?
  2. You assume that the freedom of the believers would evaporate if there were no unbelievers around. Yes, this is one of the most ridiculous ideas around. Suppose there would be only the two of us. How could the freedom your belief depend on my existence? You would be just as free to believe without my existence.
  3. God’s commandment to be loved casts a dubious light on this freedom. It is a carrot and stick setup: “love me and you will get rewarded, or don’t love me and you will get punished for it”. It sure reminds me of a mafioso, who puts a gun to your head, and commands you to “obey me freely”, or else…
 
Many errors in this reasoning.
  1. What does it mean that “God would not ALLOW atheists to be created?” Isn’t it God who does the creation?
  2. You assume that the freedom of the believers would evaporate if there were no unbelievers around. Yes, this is one of the most ridiculous ideas around. Suppose there would be only the two of us. How could the freedom your belief depend on my existence? You would be just as free to believe without my existence.
  3. God’s commandment to be loved casts a dubious light on this freedom. It is a carrot and stick setup: “love me and you will get rewarded, or don’t love me and you will get punished for it”. It sure reminds me of a mafioso, who puts a gun to your head, and commands you to “obey me freely”, or else…
This last point is most illogical in your rationale. It assumes that in order for a choice to be freely made one must like at least one of the choices offered. Thats nonsensical. We make choices sometimes the lesser of 2 evils thats just how it is. It doesnt mean we dont have a choice. Even doing nothing is a freely chosen act.
 
Many errors in this reasoning.
  1. What does it mean that “God would not ALLOW atheists to be created?” Isn’t it God who does the creation?
  2. You assume that the freedom of the believers would evaporate if there were no unbelievers around. Yes, this is one of the most ridiculous ideas around. Suppose there would be only the two of us. How could the freedom your belief depend on my existence? You would be just as free to believe without my existence.
  3. God’s commandment to be loved casts a dubious light on this freedom. It is a carrot and stick setup: “love me and you will get rewarded, or don’t love me and you will get punished for it”. It sure reminds me of a mafioso, who puts a gun to your head, and commands you to “obey me freely”, or else…
That’s not the command. God’s saying, “Love is the greatest good-and the only good that can make humans genuinely, eternally happy-and I happen to know this because, well, I’m God.” This is why St Basil could say,

**“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”
**
Justice is involved because the severe unhappiness that this world experiences due to being separated from this ultimate good is what leads man to all the selfish acts-when pursuing lesser goods- that constitute moral evil against himself and each other. So, if the ultimate injustice is to not love God and neighbor, then, by your reasoning, God should not create those who would end up atheists, at least those who would refuse to have any god before them eternally. Atheism, or at least declaring oneself atheist, doesn’t automatically lead to immoral acts-it’s just the basis of amorality because it excludes a superior being to love, let alone obey. For all practical purposes atheism is what Adam & Eve “gained” for themselves, i.e. we’re all born atheists.
 
This last point is most illogical in your rationale. It assumes that in order for a choice to be freely made one must like at least one of the choices offered. Thats nonsensical. We make choices sometimes the lesser of 2 evils thats just how it is. It doesnt mean we dont have a choice. Even doing nothing is a freely chosen act.
The option or the choice is there, even if there is only one person. What is so hard about this?

Sure, you have the choice to disobey God or the mafioso. The outcome is not palatable, however.
 
The option or the choice is there, even if there is only one person. What is so hard about this?

Sure, you have the choice to disobey God or the mafioso. The outcome is not palatable, however.
Outcome has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether or not you have the freedom to choose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top