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?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 80 by Monta]

Monta: "We all know what our psychology tells us, torture is good."

Maybe you know that. I don't know that. I don't think any of the professors who taught me a bit of psychology (General psychology, abnormal psychology, criminal psychology and the biological bases of human behavior) would tell us that torture is good.

Monta: "Eternal God was there as He is here to tell man to choose the right path."

And you know this ... how?

Monta: "As long as man chooses to go down a rabbit hole, no, God will not stop him.'

So, God is indifferent. That would explain much. I'll certainly accept that as straight from the horse's .... mouth!

[Peds nurse]

So the argument seems to be that you have to be allowed to sin so you can repent. Thus it is important to allow Sam to be tortured and murdered so that his murderer, Tom will learn to repent? Those children are starving because they were, by God's omnipotent will, born sinners? And they have to be made sorry for their very existence?

Not exactly. It is because we sin that we have separation from God. It is because of our sin that we need to repent. To say that Sam is tortured so that Tom can repent is rather far fetched because Tom doesn’t need to kill anyone to repent.

Psychologists have long known that if you want to deter unwanted behavior, you provide negative reinforcement immediately when that behavior is manifest. Why doesn't your God know that?

God is not a person. So, His thinking goes way beyond our attempts to rationalize it. What we know pales in comparison to what He knows.

I got tired of trying to make quotations work. For times sake, I just posted it.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 66 by shnarkle]

He's not presenting mainstream Christian doctrine...

Well it is up to Christians to correct him rather than remain silent about it. Peds nurse created the thread, and has said nothing about this members comments at all. This leaves the reader naturally enough thinking Peds nurse agrees and supports this 'non-mainstream Christian doctrine' by her silence or unwillingness to rebuke her Christian brother for his blasphemy, as do all other Christians contributing to this thread.

Hey William! I feel that you are being quite presumptuous. I don’t feel the need to regulate everyone’s doctrine, nor Is it an indicator of my position when I do not. This is a debating site, we are not always going to agree on things. What I find of more value than to correct everyone’s doctrine, is to discuss these differences with love and respect so that each party can share their beliefs and thoughts freely.

How else can the reader interpret the events?

By not assuming that silence always means agreement.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by Peds nurse]

Hi Peds

That you have decided to comment and have indicated you do not agree with the members particular take on GOD shows the reader that you are willing to take some responsibility in relation to your own position and helping the reader be less confused regarding that position.

This is indeed a debate sight, and this particular forum is particularly focused upon theology, doctrine and dogma so one's silence can indeed promote the understanding that when Christians generally remain silent about their brethren expressions, they are indeed signalling the reader they agree with that brethren.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by Peds nurse]

God is not a person. So, His thinking goes way beyond our attempts to rationalize it. What we know pales in comparison to what He knows.

I would keep that in the fore of my mind when attributing such things to GOD as;

Gender.
Activity attributed which promote rationalizing cruelty in the name of truth and justice.
Keeping silent when brethren rationalize ideas of hell and damnation, and claim GOD is only doing what any loving being would do under the circumstances.

[William]

[Replying to post 77 by TSGracchus]

What psychology tells us is that to be an effective deterrent punishment must be immediate and certain. So apparently, this omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous, eternal God wasn't around to deter the previous bad behavior? Or maybe, as the Bible points out repeatedly, he just can't seem to do it right the first time?

What the story does delve into is how humans generally thought about things in those times, and how - when those old ways of thinking are not corrected - atrocities can be enacted on the wrongful assumption that 'GOD' acts in a particular way, so we should also.

I have met no believers in that idea of GOD who seriously question the rightfulness of this story in context and remain believers in said idea of GOD.

Mostly, as can be verified with the posts Christians and other believers in this idea of GOD make, their fear of consequence in upsetting this GOD outweighs their ability to think rationally and as a result they conflate actions of hate with love [Stockholm Syndrome] and that particular rabbit hole is deep and dark and plays its part in the woes of the world.

Believing in the Garden of Eden story as a literal event only adds to this problem.

Taken as metaphor it is easiest seen as a lesson parents gave to their children as a means of explaining a situation which otherwise remained a mystery, and thus the GOD in the story is very 'parent-like' - one has to be hard on the kids because they are ignorant (do not have the knowledge of good and evil) and the environment is hard and dangerous so the faster one gets wise to that, the better equipped one is to handle those things effectively.

There is no time for dilly-dally. In this, one could argue the psychology of the punishment not fitting the crime. The parent only knows that the child who does not listen is the child most likely to perish in this world.

The child's mind is undeveloped and will remain so even long into puberty. Fear is the key - not complex explanations which fail to get through, but simply stories designed to get the attention, as all fairy tales at bedtime are designed to achieve.

GOD became the boogie-man to the disobedient and the savior to those who listen to advice which is designed to give you the best possible chance of surviving and somewhere along the development of the invention of the GOD, this split into two GODs, one for good and the other for evil and both vying for the individuals soul- further adding to the confusion dualism always creates.

Not too much later on of course, it was found that money and power could be extracted from ideas of GOD told to children who continued to believe the fairy tales even as adults. That is what lying to children inevitable produces. Adults lying to each other and some living off the sweat and blood of the many - basically human GODs dictating the terms.

I suppose now is as good a time as any to extract from my Save As Draft files, what I wrote in response to the member who has sparked this branch of the debate subject...

[Replying to post 36 by ttruscott]

If your theology about the nature of a GOD and His Humans were actually The Truth then it would have to be distrusted because it comes from the minds of EVIL and one would expect such a theology to be shaped in this manner by that which is reprobate.

What I wonder about this belief is how those who believe it will react when they finally learn the truth that GOD is in no way who they believe GOD is. Will they finally repent or will they clench fists of rage and bellow their displeasure in the face of righteousness?

Perhaps those who believe in hell for others, should spend some time in that hell themselves. Perhaps that would help uncover the darkness which shades their minds and distorts their hearts. But no - I get the impression such individuals would be unmoved by such experience - like Brer Rabbit and the thorn bushes...but darker.

No, that will not do. The everlasting patience of First Source will prevail. FS would look at such souls and say;

I convey this message to you whom I have stirred with the sound of my voice. These words are my signature. You may bring your doubt, your fear, your faith, or your courage; it matters not, for you will be touched by the rhythm of my voice. It moves through you like a beam of light that sweeps – if only for a moment – the darkness aside.

I dwell in a frequency of light in which finite beings cannot uncover me. If you search for me, you will fail. I am not found or discovered. I am only realized in oneness, unity, and wholeness. It is the very same oneness that you feel when you are interconnected with all of life, for I am this and this alone. I am all of life. If you must search for me, then practice the feeling of wholeness and unity.

In my deepest light I created you from my desire to understand my universe. You are my emissaries. You are free to journey the universe of universes as particles from my infinite womb with destinies that you alone will write. I do not prescribe your journey or your journey’s aim. I only accompany you. I do not pull you this way or that, nor do I punish you when you stray from my heart. This I do as an outcome of my belief in you.

You are the heirs of my light, which gave you form. It is my voice that awakened you to individuality, but it will be your will that awakens you to our unity. It is your desire to know me as your self that brings you to my presence so perfectly hidden from your world. I am behind everything that you see, hear, touch, taste, smell, feel, and believe...

http://www.wingmakers.com/

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 78 by shnarkle]

Psychologists aren't gods, but we have been assured that God is! Why can't he get it right immediately the first time, every time?!

Good question. I've never really thought about it until now. You're asking some really good questions and its getting me to think about what's really going on. As little my familiarity with Truscott's position is, there's something about it that kind of makes sense and now that you mention it, I can see some similarities between what he's saying and what mainstream Christianity is saying. Mainstream Christianity seems to be pointing out that the world we live in is a mess because we made some mistakes, and I think Truscott is saying effectively the same thing. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's saying that the world we live in today is a sort of detention; a remedial life 101 for dunderheads who are too stupid to figure things out the first time.

So your question got me to thinking that what's really going on is that it isn't that God got it wrong the first time, but he's just not wasting his time with a bunch of idiots that are too stupid to figure things out the first time. He's perfectly content to let us all wallow around in this big pile of exquisite and precious swine excrement to our heart's content until some, like the prodigal son; get the idea that perhaps there's more to life than lounging in this muck.

And yet the children, even babies, are still abused, enslaved, tortured, molested, and killed. So if they sinned terribly in some previous existence, they don't remember now, and don't know why they are being abused now. Even humans have progressed to the point where some of us, at least in theory, forbid cruel and unusual punishments, but omniscient, omnipotent, merciful, kindly, loving God can't seem to do without them. Oh yeah! I should be convinced.

Again, I'm not speaking for anyone else, and I'm in no way attempting to convince you otherwise, but just going by what you're posting, I don't have a problem with letting those who "sinned terribly" suffer for their sins, especially if that's what they want to do. My guess is that Truscott's theories require that those who "sinned terribly" knew what they were doing and sinned of their own free volition.

Years ago, I remember watching Iraqi prisoners being interviewed on the details of how they were tortured mercilessly with high voltage electrical cables attached to their testicles etc. I was living in San Francisco at the time and some of the newspapers are full of advertisements offering essentially the same services for those who are willing to pay top dollar. What a rip off , I thought; all these people could simply join the military, and not only get paid, but get paid to indulge their most masochistic tendencies. One man's trash is another one's treasure, and one man's torture is another man's pleasure.

So do you believe that those who "sinned terribly" should be forgiven? And if so, what should God do with them if they don't want to stop their terrible sinning? The more I think about this, the more it is beginning to look like we're all in hell right now.

He can't just lay it all out plainly? He just gives hints?

Here again, I'm beginning to think that he does lay it out plainly. We're just not paying attention. I've done this numerous times with people. I've laid out plainly what the deal is, and they just don't have a clue what's going on. They'll go right out and do what I explicitly told them NOT to do. We have traffic lights that are in plain sight and people just drive right through red lights as if they weren't there. People slam right into the rear ends of stopped cars like they needed some sort of hint that the car was actually there. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

we should just accept that what the priests and preachers say is God's will.

If there is a God and it is God's will, what else can you do? You can resist, struggle, throw a temper tantrum, whine and cry, but in the final analysis, God's dice are loaded so you can play by his rules or go home. Having said that, I'd never drop a dime in any collection basket. The only reason to go to church is strictly for entertainment purposes.

So we should just accept it, bow, grovel, and drop money in the collection plate.

See above.

Christians always know exactly what God wants except when he is being mysterious.

Perhaps they do, I'm not really paying that much attention as the vast majority make no sense to me whatsoever. However, as I mentioned before, i do enjoy engaging them in debate from time to time. Some JW's have been dropping by lately. They seem to drop by for a few months, and then lose interest only to appear a few months later with a new approach which they think will work this time to get me to join their ranks.

But it always comes down to: “Shut up, obey, and hand over the money. Resistance is futile.�

Hey, it seems to work for them. Don't knock it till you try it. Think about it. All you have to do is start your own non denominational non profit church and start collecting money. What's wrong with flying around the country in the newest multi million dollar Gulstream? It's all the more enjoyable when the whole thing is being paid by the voluntary contributions of your loving congregation.

[benchwarmer]

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?

Hi Peds, sorry I'm late to the party, interesting debate topic.

Responding directly to the question for debate: Yes, I think the manufacturing company has some liability here though they are obviously not entirely liable. They have created something that under 'normal' use is potentially deadly when they could have limited it to more 'reasonable' speeds. This is all somewhat subjective without a lot of hard data, but if this is a family car, I don't think limiting the speed to something more reasonable than 120mph is a stretch. Why make something that can easily be misused when it's possible to mitigate the risk somewhat? To make it more clear, what if the company could choose the top speed with no cost difference to them. Do you think it's responsible of the company to make a family car with a top speed of 300mph when they could choose 80mph instead?

Now, taking this parallel to the spiritual realm doesn't really work because with the car company, they only create the cars not the users. In God's case, He created everything including the rules of physics, etc. By definition He is liable for everything since He created everything including the users of everything.

If there is true free will, then God (if we assume He is real for the sake of argument) also created that did He not?

Let's try a different analogy. Let's suppose you are creating a virtual world in which you control everything. That is, you code the entire thing all by yourself. In your virtual world, you create programs that can act freely within all their defined parameters. These programs can interact with all the other programs in the system.

Now, if some of these programs started killing off other programs, are you going to blame the programs themselves or the person who created all this? What if you were silly and connected your virtual world to the outside world (i.e. the internet) and your virtual creatures starting taking down websites, turning off power grids, and generally doing various nefarious things. Should we blame the programs and let you wash your hands free of the entire affair?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 82 by Peds nurse]

TSGracchus: �So the argument seems to be that you have to be allowed to sin so you can repent. Thus it is important to allow Sam to be tortured and murdered so that his murderer, Tom will learn to repent? Those children are starving because they were, by God's omnipotent will, born sinners? And they have to be made sorry for their very existence?�

Peds nurse: �Not exactly. It is because we sin that we have separation from God. It is because of our sin that we need to repent.�

If God is everywhere how can I separate myself from him? Why can't I repent without suffering? In fact, I often do.

Peds nurse: �To say that Sam is tortured so that Tom can repent is rather far fetched because Tom doesn’t need to kill anyone to repent.�

And yet... We had to kill Jesus before God would allow us to repent so God could forgive us? That seems to me to be even more far-fetched, because God, being omnipotent, could just forgive us; and God, being omniscient, knew that we would fail in the circumstances under which we did fail.

And what about poor Sam? Even if he were guilty in some past life he doesn't remember it. He was only a baby when that Israelite soldier dashed his head against the rock, just as God commanded. Why should he be made to suffer so?

TSGracchus: �Psychologists have long known that if you want to deter unwanted behavior, you provide negative reinforcement immediately when that behavior is manifest. Why doesn't your God know that?

Peds nurse: �God is not a person. So, His thinking goes way beyond our attempts to rationalize it. What we know pales in comparison to what He knows.�

If God wants us to understand then it is up to him, being so much wiser to make himself plain. If we can't possibly understand, we are created by his design, and our flaws must be part of his design. Why should we repent what we were fated to do because we were designed to fail?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei

............. OFF TOPIC ..........

Peds nurse: �I got tired of trying to make quotations work. For times sake, I just posted it.�

It does take some time and effort to format replies correctly if you are going to quote prior posts. But if your literary rhetoric is touched with a bit of obsession, you might look at how I handle the problem: First I copy the post I am responding to then paste it into OpenOffice Writer. Then I separate and label the points I wish to address with the name of the person I am answering, a colon, an “i� in square brackets, an opening quotation mark, the point I am responding to, closing quote, “/i� in square brackets.

I then respond point by point. If I quote myself, I use the same method.

Then, I select all, and copy it into the DC&R editor, and color my quoted comments one color, and those I am responding to another color.

Then I preview and make corrections. Lather, rinse, repeat.

When satisfied, I sign off with an emoticon.

Then I submit, and re-read, and make corrections.

Now, no one who looked at my apartment would guess what neat freak I can be. I certainly spend at least twice as much time editing as I do composing.

The point is however, to make my meaning clear. I think God should do me the same courtesy.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 82 by Peds nurse]

TSGracchus: �So the argument seems to be that you have to be allowed to sin so you can repent. Thus it is important to allow Sam to be tortured and murdered so that his murderer, Tom will learn to repent? Those children are starving because they were, by God's omnipotent will, born sinners? And they have to be made sorry for their very existence?�

Peds nurse: �Not exactly. It is because we sin that we have separation from God. It is because of our sin that we need to repent.�

If God is everywhere how can I separate myself from him? Why can't I repent without suffering? In fact, I often do.

Peds nurse: �To say that Sam is tortured so that Tom can repent is rather far fetched because Tom doesn’t need to kill anyone to repent.�

And yet... We had to kill Jesus before God would allow us to repent so God could forgive us? That seems to me to be even more far-fetched, because God, being omnipotent, could just forgive us; and God, being omniscient, knew that we would fail in the circumstances under which we did fail.

And what about poor Sam? Even if he were guilty in some past life he doesn't remember it. He was only a baby when that Israelite soldier dashed his head against the rock, just as God commanded. Why should he be made to suffer so?

TSGracchus: �Psychologists have long known that if you want to deter unwanted behavior, you provide negative reinforcement immediately when that behavior is manifest. Why doesn't your God know that?

Peds nurse: �God is not a person. So, His thinking goes way beyond our attempts to rationalize it. What we know pales in comparison to what He knows.�

If God wants us to understand then it is up to him, being so much wiser to make himself plain. If we can't possibly understand, we are created by his design, and our flaws must be part of his design. Why should we repent what we were fated to do because we were designed to fail?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei

............. OFF TOPIC ..........

Peds nurse: �I got tired of trying to make quotations work. For times sake, I just posted it.�

It does take some time and effort to format replies correctly if you are going to quote prior posts. But if your literary rhetoric is touched with a bit of obsession, you might look at how I handle the problem: First I copy the post I am responding to then paste it into OpenOffice Writer. Then I separate and label the points I wish to address with the name of the person I am answering, a colon, an “i� in square brackets, an opening quotation mark, the point I am responding to, closing quote, “/i� in square brackets.

I then respond point by point. If I quote myself, I use the same method.

Then, I select all, and copy it into the DC&R editor, and color my quoted comments one color, and those I am responding to another color.

Then I preview and make corrections. Lather, rinse, repeat.

When satisfied, I sign off with an emoticon.

Then I submit, and re-read, and make corrections.

Now, no one who looked at my apartment would guess what neat freak I can be. I certainly spend at least twice as much time editing as I do composing.

The point is however, to make my meaning clear. I think God should do me the same courtesy.

Here's the answer to why God will not extend to us the same courtesy. The answer is because we are not extending him any courtesy whatsoever. We're a bunch of fools who are petrified of God. This is what the texts state:

they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

They didn't believe God and when they transgressed his will they no longer wanted anything to do with him. So he tossed them out just like any good parent would when their children are ready to be on their own. Given we're told that God is omniscient, who can blame them for wanting to be around someone who knows every thought before you even think it? The less one thinks about it, the better off one can feel about working on believing that their thoughts are their own. We need to believe that our thoughts are our own, don't we? We cherish our privacy, and the very thought that we may have no privacy at all, is repugnant and revolting. Perish the thought.