Who is responsible?

[Peds nurse]

Imagine that a car manufacturing company, made the standard cars that we all drive today. It is equipped with a manual that tells the driver how to use the car efficiently. Although the car is equipped to engage in speeds of 120 miles per hour, the manual cautions the driver of the hazards of driving at such speeds.

Question for debate. Should the manufacturing company be held liable for people getting into accidents and sometimes causing death by driving at speeds not recommended?

I think we can translate this to the spiritual realm. Why should God be held accountable for people who make faulty decisions with their life, sometimes hurting or killing others?

[steveb1]

A creator can and should be blamed for the existence of human evil if only because - if the creator is all-powerful / and / all-knowing / and all-loving - then "He" could easily have designed a world whose conditions excluded moral evil. ("He" could also have designed a world that excluded natural evils such as forest/grass fires, plagues, earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches, landslides, disease, harmful bacteria, disease, injury, aging and death. But that's a separate but related topic.)

Playing "angel's advocate" as it were, I take it the Christian would respond in this kind of manner:

Mankind has been begotten in the Original Sin of our First Parents; thus hopelessly Depraved. And therefore, whatever the state of Nature might be, it is much less than we deserve due to our Inherent Depravity.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

I'm wondering how you would respond as a former Christian....

I really can no longer respond in any Christian way, former or current, since I'm now a Buddhist. Buddhism does not offer liberation from sin, but rather from attachment to things and to one's own ego. The cliche is that Western therapy offers freedom of the self, but Eastern religions offer freedom from the self - self defined as "ego", and ego defined as "the anxious, grasping self".

In Buddhism, human depravity is thought to derive from the unenlightened, unregenerate ego and its range of wrong thinking and wrong behavior. Thus Buddhism has no divine saviors who redeem us from sin.

As a Jodo Shinshu/Shin Buddhist, I do have a "savior" of sorts - not a God or a God-man, but rather a primordial being called Amida Buddha. In Shin there is almost a Pauline reliance on Amida Buddha for salvation and enlightenment. The salvation is not from sin, but from our native condition of avidya or spiritual ignorance which in Shin is ignorance of our own innate Buddha Nature. The Buddha grants us the unearned, free gift of Shinjin (perfect faith) which in this life functions as Buddha Nature and which after death blossoms into full Buddhahood as a product of Amida's store of grace. This is "Pauline" in that Shin says that works cannot save us. We are utterly reliant on Amida Buddha for salvation and enlightenment.

So I could only reply to the putative Christian that there is no creator deity to be offended by sin, there is no sin that cuts one off from the creator's presence and grace, and there is no salvation by a creator or a creator's "son", but only through the Buddha's gift of adamantine faith. Humankind is not fallen, but simply exists in this imperfect world of Samsara, from which the Buddha Dharma can rescue us.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

"If one thinks that Adonai does exist, holding another philosophy out of spite seems be to creating a duplicitious existence of one's own creation."

Agreed, at least partially. Just as I can see a war protester's revolt leading him/her into a morally acceptable peace movement, so, too, I can see someone rebelling against the Creator, whether a pagan or Jewish one, who (like the peace activist) "journeys beyond mere rebellion" and authentically converts to one of the Gnostic sects that taught that while Adonai/YHWH is real, he is merely the creator of a paltry, infested world, and not all-powerful. The real God being the Gnostic True Father, the Silence, the Abyss and all the other names by which he was called, to whom the Gnostic soul unites in this life and flies to in the next life.

No, you do not understand. I think you are conflating peace protest with violent pacifism. Not all peace protesters are pacifists and not all protests are violent. If one holds that violence is an innate part of the human experience, then that person being a pacifist is duplicitious and futile. However, if one does not believe that violence is not an inherent part of the human experience, then, even if one is surrounded by violence, being a pacifist is not duplicitious and not necessarily futile.

Yes, that's somewhat true and I did not mean to identify all war protesters as violent. Still, none of that changes my contention that IF God is a creator, God is the source to be blamed for worldly suffering.

[Peds nurse]

A creator can and should be blamed for the existence of human evil if only because - if the creator is all-powerful / and / all-knowing / and all-loving - then "He" could easily have designed a world whose conditions excluded moral evil. ("He" could also have designed a world that excluded natural evils such as forest/grass fires, plagues, earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches, landslides, disease, harmful bacteria, disease, injury, aging and death. But that's a separate but related topic.)

Hey Steve! It is a pleasure to converse with you!

What if God did create such a place, but then the creation ate some forbidden fruit, and the evil was opened to the eyes of humans? What if, since He is all knowing, that He knew that love could not be demanded or forced, but nurtured and built on trust. He designed us that we could speed to 120 to the forbidden tree, but He certainly didn't recommend it. He said it would cause a separation from himself.

[Peds nurse]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

Inasmuch as human evil is partially derived from the putative creator's failure to prevent human (and natural evil) from occurring; or inasmuch as the putative creator saw fit to even, simply, allow for the possibility of evil, then - although human beings can be greatly responsible for the evil they do - the creator remains the ultimate source, and therefore the ultimate object of blame, for evil.

OK, now what? What is one to do with this information, if it is true?

As I indicated, I don't think it is true. That's because although I believe that God is real, I deny that God is a creator, intervener or judge. Thus God can't be blamed for the world's evils or praised for the world's goodness. The creation, maintenance of, and intervention in, the world is simply not part of God's job description.

May I ask what His job description is?

[steveb1]

A creator can and should be blamed for the existence of human evil if only because - if the creator is all-powerful / and / all-knowing / and all-loving - then "He" could easily have designed a world whose conditions excluded moral evil. ("He" could also have designed a world that excluded natural evils such as forest/grass fires, plagues, earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches, landslides, disease, harmful bacteria, disease, injury, aging and death. But that's a separate but related topic.)

Hey Steve! It is a pleasure to converse with you!

What if God did create such a place, but then the creation ate some forbidden fruit, and the evil was opened to the eyes of humans? What if, since He is all knowing, that He knew that love could not be demanded or forced, but nurtured and built on trust. He designed us that we could speed to 120 to the forbidden tree, but He certainly didn't recommend it. He said it would cause a separation from himself.

Nice talking to you, too.

My problem with the Eden story is that the serpent is the real hero. He explains that if A&E ate the forbidden fruit, they would be like God, knowing good and evil. Obviously "God" did not want his creatures to be godlike. This is confirmed when he kicked them out of the Garden, fearing that if they had stayed and eaten from the Tree of Life, they would also, in addition to having the godlike knowledge of good and evil, have immortality. Instead of ensuring a docile, non-rebellious sheep-like A&E, and instead of kicking the serpent out before he could persuade them of the power of the Trees, "God" let the tragedy unfold, and only retroactively took action in the form of punishment rather than of education and rehabilitation. He curses the serpent and A&E both. Seems an ignorant, uncompassionate, even clumsy response to a situation that "God" himself had created.

In order to get "God" off the hook, the Jewish Bible claims that post-Eden, God was still lurking in the shadows, permitting the Edenic punishment to continue while he still kept a watchful eye on humanity. This process continued for thousands of years until "God" made a new covenant with Noah, but again, only after wiping out all mankind except for Noah's family. Then "God" made another covenant with Abraham, then again with Moses, and then "unofficially" through the Prophets, who promulgated what they believed was the divine will for Jews and humankind in general.

So without meaning to invoke too crude a description, to me "God's salvation plan" seems like an inept, lengthy and arbitrary attempt at salvaging a creation that "God" himself failed to make perfect from the beginning. As "the Almighty", he could have applied any number of non-punitive "fixes" to the situation, but he seldom did so.

[jgh7]

Imagine that a car manufacturing company, made the standard cars that we all drive today. It is equipped with a manual that tells the driver how to use the car efficiently. Although the car is equipped to engage in speeds of 120 miles per hour, the manual cautions the driver of the hazards of driving at such speeds.

Question for debate. Should the manufacturing company be held liable for people getting into accidents and sometimes causing death by driving at speeds not recommended?

I think we can translate this to the spiritual realm. Why should God be held accountable for people who make faulty decisions with their life, sometimes hurting or killing others?

Let's say then that no law enforcement occurs for dangerous speeding, even in school zones. Kids sometimes get run over. The government doesn't condone speeding, but for whatever reason it does nothing to stop it even though it easily could. The citizens complain saying that it's the government's fault in addition to the speeder's. They say the government should intervene because it has the power to stop the bad acts and prevent suffering.

What do you make of this?

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Peds nurse]

The human form does not come with a manual, warranty or a return/exchange if faulty policy.

That was more of a heroic testimony to the love that God has for us.

Take it as you will. Does the love someone has for another indicate something of a responsibility?

Indeed, does the One Law indicate individual responsibility?

William, I am sorry, but I am going to have to come clean. I didn't really know that plastics were creating a problem. I don't watch television..or really read the news. If plastics are creating a problem, then yes, I would say the manufacturers certainly have a part in that. I feel however, that this isn't the same as people speeding recklessly down the highway. Plastic can't make a choice.

Peds Nurse - are you responsible for what you know and what you have access to but prefer to remain ignorant of?

Vehicles cannot make a choice either. If they are used recklessly, and manufactures cannot do something to correct that, then they cannot be seen to be responsible for how someone uses their product. If their product is faulty to begin with and causes safety issues, they are recalled and the problem sorted. As can be seen, your analogy doesn't really fit.

The idea is that the vehicle was created to allow sin to be possible. The human form allowed for that, and clearly the story shows that the GOD did share the responsibility for that.

One can say that we are able to choose how we use the form, but by all accounts the form wasn't really the only problem. The breath breathed into the form was the also the problem.

It is not the form that 'falls short' but also the consciousness within the form which falls short. Misses the mark. Sins. The form is not sinning any more than the vehicle is. The consciousness within the form is that which is sinning.

The difference with a human form and a motor vehicle is that when an individual uses the vehicle, doing so does not cut the person off from being the human by allowing the human to think he is the vehicle. In relation to the human form, the consciousness using the form is cut off from the direct knowledge that he is not the form, but rather, is the consciousness occupying the form. He literally thinks he is the form.

The form, therefore, is either designed to give the consciousness using it, that impression - or it simply cannot be helped. As well as that, every one of those forms is unique. Some are female, some are male, some are both. Some have quick brains some have slow brains, some are strong others are weak, etc et al.

Either the form is faulty OR the designer of the form created it that way purposefully.

If it is faulty, then the designer has a great responsibility regarding that. If it is not faulty but purposefully designed that way, then the designer still shares the responsibility. There is no escaping this. If there is a designer, then the designer shares the responsibility.

I do understand that Christian theology has evolved over the centuries in a way which attempts to separate the designer from the responsibility of the design, but that is just something the supporters of Christendom are responsible for in relation to any damage done in the world on account of that. Ignorance is and will be no defense/excuse.

While looking for places in which to allocate blame, does the job of fixing anything ever really get done?

I agree with your statement with blame, but all to often I see where people are blaming God for the state of our world. Perhaps that is why nothing is getting done to improve it?

That is one major reason. The other major reason is people are blaming people for the state of the world. Other people, not themselves.
Another major reason why not much is getting done is that millions of people believe that the worlds problems will not be solved until Jesus returns and does so. Related to that, millions of people believe that the earth is Satan's domain, and so there is little concern with the state it is in, as these people believe their destiny awaits them in a heavenly realm.

In other words, there are a number of integrated reasons why nothing much is getting done to improve it. However, it is my observation that more and more people are focused on doing their part to fix the problems...they have their work cut out for them though...

[Peds nurse]

Nice talking to you, too.

My problem with the Eden story is that the serpent is the real hero. He explains that if A&E ate the forbidden fruit, they would be like God, knowing good and evil. Obviously "God" did not want his creatures to be godlike. This is confirmed when he kicked them out of the Garden, fearing that if they had stayed and eaten from the Tree of Life, they would also, in addition to having the godlike knowledge of good and evil, have immortality. Instead of ensuring a docile, non-rebellious sheep-like A&E, and instead of kicking the serpent out before he could persuade them of the power of the Trees, "God" let the tragedy unfold, and only retroactively took action in the form of punishment rather than of education and rehabilitation. He curses the serpent and A&E both. Seems an ignorant, uncompassionate, even clumsy response to a situation that "God" himself had created.

I have never heard your perspective on what happened in the garden before. With the scenario you provided, it brings me to a question. Can one volunteer obedience if the choice to be disobedient was never given? The same question can be asked of free will or love.

In order to get "God" off the hook, the Jewish Bible claims that post-Eden, God was still lurking in the shadows, permitting the Edenic punishment to continue while he still kept a watchful eye on humanity. This process continued for thousands of years until "God" made a new covenant with Noah, but again, only after wiping out all mankind except for Noah's family. Then "God" made another covenant with Abraham, then again with Moses, and then "unofficially" through the Prophets, who promulgated what they believed was the divine will for Jews and humankind in general.

So without meaning to invoke too crude a description, to me "God's salvation plan" seems like an inept, lengthy and arbitrary attempt at salvaging a creation that "God" himself failed to make perfect from the beginning. As "the Almighty", he could have applied any number of non-punitive "fixes" to the situation, but he seldom did so.

My belief: The beginning was perfect, until Adam and Eve disobeyed God. In a very short synopsis of what you described above, the problem has never been about God's ability to create perfection, it has been about our disobedience.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 18 by Peds nurse]

Thanks for the comments, but we'll have to agree to disagree because YHWH's purported omniscience/omnipotence, in my view, would never have resulted in the conditions that gave rise to the Eden story. Not that I take it literally, but it does have some fascinating questions about us, God, the world, and moral choice.

[bluethread]

Yes, that's somewhat true and I did not mean to identify all war protesters as violent. Still, none of that changes my contention that IF God is a creator, God is the source to be blamed for worldly suffering.

What does that mean? You can blame me for any number of things. However, if you can't hold me to account, what is the point? Should I refuse to engage in charitable activities, simply because I can blame a deity for situations people find themelves in?