How far reaching are God's powers?

[The Grand Nudger]

 My ignorance of what, exactly?

Anything, absolutely anything.  Can you be held morally responsible for things that you are ignorant of?

Can you be held morally responsible for things you are incapable of.

Can you be held morally responsible for what you have no choice in doing?

If so......how?  Lay out a description of moral desert if you believe that it can be maintained in any of these circumstances.

If you believe I'm ignorant concerning my own faith, then please point out what it is that I don't know, and we can discuss it. You simply making vague declarations about what I do and don't know isn't helping the conversation move along. 

It doesn't matter whether you are or aren;t ignorant of your own faith.  If you were, could you be held morally responsible for it?  

If so, how?

If you're saying that you're incapable of understanding my argument about evil people being held responsible for their actions despite their nature, and that your failing to understand is the result of my own ignorance, I suppose I can at least acknowledge the possibility that I'm unable to clearly articulate it to you, perhaps even due to some lack of understanding on my part, but I don't believe this to be the case. I've explained myself over and over, many times and in many ways, and you always repeat that you don't understand.

If I'm incapable of something, can I be held morally responsible for that?

If so, how?

My response to your lack of understanding is that God has taken away your ability to understand, because of your sins. Same goes for anyone else who can't hear me. Who are you to say that you can see, if you're blind? Can you acknowledge the possibility that God has blinded you, and that there is no way you could understand me if He has done so?

If a god has donr something to a person, are they morally responsible for the effects of what that god has done?

If so, how?

Where is your humility?

If there is no possibility of my having humility, can I be held morally responsible for it's lack?

If so...how?

The proud insist that they couldn't possibly be wrong, and the humble admit they could be.

If pride were the inevitable product of chemical interactions specific to human biology, could we hold prideful people morally responsible, for being prideful?

If so.............how?

That is why you can't see. It's a matter of pride. Of course, you might come back with some feigned humility, but the Lord knows your heart.

Can we hold the blind morally responsible for their blindness?

If so, how?

And perhaps I'm even wrong about you having a pride problem, though it seems quite obvious to me. Could be. I'm not always right; don't need to be, because my faith isn't in myself but in God. I may very well need correction here, and if so, then I pray that it be done, even before all of you, for the benefit of all. I'm not interested in proving anyone wrong, I'm only interested in the truth.

If you couldn't get right...if you were incompetent.....could you be held morally responsible?

If so.  How.

[Sound Of Reason]

What is God god of? My guess is that most believers believe that God's powers go over our solar system. So is the God a God of the whole galaxy or just part of the galaxy? Does it go beyond galaxy and God is God of the whole galactic cluster? Or the believers believe that God is in charge of all the galaxies? I mean that is a lot of galaxies, stars, planets, and whatnot.

And if God is God of the whole universe is it just this universe or is he God of all other universes, or each universe has its own God?

Psalm 82 mentions how God has meetings with other gods so we see some division of power, perhaps gods of other galaxies or universes?

I think, and according to God's description, God created everything, and everything means literally everything, which includes math.
Saying Gods (plural) mean nothing since God created math in the first place.
Also, saying that God has power means nothing since he created power in the first place.
Saying that someone created him also means nothing for the same reason.
God should be described as the one who created everything, no matter what your mind can dive deep into.
God should be only described as whoever created everything, and that is it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why who?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I'm always confused by the weird differance between "Reality needs a diety to be its reason for existance."

It's like they've just moved up a couple of sizes.

"We must appease Kahulununa the volcanoe god."
*Pssst. It's just a mountain. *
"Oh, uhm... We must appease Kulkulcottle the sun god!"
*Psssst. It's just a ball of hydrogen being crushed under gravity.*
"Oh.... uhm. We must appease Kleptotwerkal the universe god!"

You see how it goes?

[Sal]

What is God god of? My guess is that most believers believe that God's powers go over our solar system. So is the God a God of the whole galaxy or just part of the galaxy? Does it go beyond galaxy and God is God of the whole galactic cluster? Or the believers believe that God is in charge of all the galaxies? I mean that is a lot of galaxies, stars, planets, and whatnot.

And if God is God of the whole universe is it just this universe or is he God of all other universes, or each universe has its own God?

Psalm 82 mentions how God has meetings with other gods so we see some division of power, perhaps gods of other galaxies or universes?

I think, and according to God's description, God created everything, and everything means literally everything, which includes math.
Saying Gods (plural) mean nothing since God created math in the first place.
Also, saying that God has power means nothing since he created power in the first place.
Saying that someone created him also means nothing for the same reason.
God should be described as the one who created everything, no matter what your mind can dive deep into.
God should be only described as whoever created everything, and that is it.

Your use of language is palpably schizophrenic. Get help.

[Nay_Sayer]

What is God god of? My guess is that most believers believe that God's powers go over our solar system. So is the God a God of the whole galaxy or just part of the galaxy? Does it go beyond galaxy and God is God of the whole galactic cluster? Or the believers believe that God is in charge of all the galaxies? I mean that is a lot of galaxies, stars, planets, and whatnot.

And if God is God of the whole universe is it just this universe or is he God of all other universes, or each universe has its own God?

Psalm 82 mentions how God has meetings with other gods so we see some division of power, perhaps gods of other galaxies or universes?

I think, and according to FSM's description, FSM created everything, and everything means literally everything, which includes math.
Saying Gods (plural) mean nothing since FSM  created math in the first place.
Also, saying that FSM  has power means nothing since Xhe created power in the first place.
Saying that someone created Xim also means nothing for the same reason.
FSM should be described as the one who created everything, no matter what your mind can dive deep into.
FSM should be only described as whoever created everything, and that is it.

There I fixed it for you.

RAmen

[Gwaithmir]

What is God god of? My guess is that most believers believe that God's powers go over our solar system. So is the God a God of the whole galaxy or just part of the galaxy? Does it go beyond galaxy and God is God of the whole galactic cluster? Or the believers believe that God is in charge of all the galaxies? I mean that is a lot of galaxies, stars, planets, and whatnot.

And if God is God of the whole universe is it just this universe or is he God of all other universes, or each universe has its own God?

Psalm 82 mentions how God has meetings with other gods so we see some division of power, perhaps gods of other galaxies or universes?

I think, and according to God's description, God created everything, and everything means literally everything, which includes math.
Saying Gods (plural) mean nothing since God created math in the first place.
Also, saying that God has power means nothing since he created power in the first place.
Saying that someone created him also means nothing for the same reason.
God should be described as the one who created everything, no matter what your mind can dive deep into.
God should be only described as whoever created everything, and that is it.

Please describe the mechanism by which God allegedly created everything ex nihilo.

[MilesAbbott81]

Anything, absolutely anything.  Can you be held morally responsible for things that you are ignorant of?

Can you be held morally responsible for things you are incapable of.

Can you be held morally responsible for what you have no choice in doing?

If so......how?  Lay out a description of moral desert if you believe that it can be maintained in any of these circumstances.  

I'd say that depends on the circumstance. Sometimes ignorance itself is a punishment or necessary affliction.

You're just asking me the same question in a different way, so let's just rephrase your question: "Can you be held morally responsible for sin if you can't control it?"

This really is the last time I'm going to answer this, and I do so not because I think you'll understand but because there may be some shortcoming on my part in explaining this that might benefit others.

Let's take Hitler as an example, and let's not include God in the equation for the sake of making the point. Does Hitler have a choice in being Hitler? After all, his life experiences were still the same. Did he have a choice in being raised by a maniacal father, or being blinded in the first World War? How about his miraculous survival in one particular battle that filled his head with delusions of grandeur? Had these things not happened to him, he almost certainly wouldn't have become a maniac himself.

Do you still hold him accountable, though he had no choice in whom he became? Of course you do, because the man was evil. He committed evil acts and posed an existential threat to humanity. He deserved every bit of his suffering in the end.

It's really no different for the sinner. We may not have a choice in becoming sinners, but we are still evil and guilty of evil acts, and as such we must be disciplined and dealt with, otherwise justice is never exacted and we turn into monsters like the people in Antifa, who are all existential threats to humanity (at least to some degree). Like Hitler, Antifa has been allowed to fester and metastasize not only to become a sword in the Lord's hand, but to illustrate what happens when there is no punishment for sin.

I would also add that our natures aren't permanent. They are a part of us temporarily, in order for the work to be done, and as we are disciplined, the Lord gives us the ability to choose good because we become aligned with His will, and not our own. I suppose it's still, in a way, the illusion of choice, but it's nothing you will be upset about when it finally happens. It's actually a superior form of our idea of freedom because it's based in His righteousness and not our sinful natures. Nevertheless, the flesh despises the idea of it, because it wants to be God and hates not being in control.

I think this satisfies the rest of your questions, which are really just different attempts at asking the same thing. Every negative you describe (blindness, pride, etc.) is either punishment for sin or necessary to the fulfillment of God's plan, and is therefore justified, because God's intentions are good and yours evil.

End of discussion, like it or not.

[arewethereyet]

Anything, absolutely anything.  Can you be held morally responsible for things that you are ignorant of?

Can you be held morally responsible for things you are incapable of.

Can you be held morally responsible for what you have no choice in doing?

If so......how?  Lay out a description of moral desert if you believe that it can be maintained in any of these circumstances.  

I'd say that depends on the circumstance. Sometimes ignorance itself is a punishment or necessary affliction.

You're just asking me the same question in a different way, so let's just rephrase your question: "Can you be held morally responsible for sin if you can't control it?"

This really is the last time I'm going to answer this, and I do so not because I think you'll understand but because there may be some shortcoming on my part in explaining this that might benefit others.

Let's take Hitler as an example, and let's not include God in the equation for the sake of making the point. Does Hitler have a choice in being Hitler? After all, his life experiences were still the same. Did he have a choice in being raised by a maniacal father, or being blinded in the first World War? How about his miraculous survival in one particular battle that filled his head with delusions of grandeur? Had these things not happened to him, he almost certainly wouldn't have become a maniac himself.

Do you still hold him accountable, though he had no choice in whom he became? Of course you do, because the man was evil. He committed evil acts and posed an existential threat to humanity. He deserved every bit of his suffering in the end.

It's really no different for the sinner. We may not have a choice in becoming sinners, but we are still evil and guilty of evil acts, and as such we must be disciplined and dealt with, otherwise justice is never exacted and we turn into monsters like the people in Antifa, who are all existential threats to humanity (at least to some degree). Like Hitler, Antifa has been allowed to fester and metastasize not only to become a sword in the Lord's hand, but to illustrate what happens when there is no punishment for sin.

I would also add that our natures aren't permanent. They are a part of us temporarily, in order for the work to be done, and as we are disciplined, the Lord gives us the ability to choose good because we become aligned with His will, and not our own. I suppose it's still, in a way, the illusion of choice, but it's nothing you will be upset about when it finally happens. It's actually a superior form of our idea of freedom because it's based in His righteousness and not our sinful natures. Nevertheless, the flesh despises the idea of it, because it wants to be God and hates not being in control.

I think this satisfies the rest of your questions, which are really just different attempts at asking the same thing. Every negative you describe (blindness, pride, etc.) is either punishment for sin or necessary to the fulfillment of God's plan, and is therefore justified, because God's intentions are good and yours evil.

End of discussion, like it or not.

Thank gawd.

[Silver]

Your argument fails in two ways.

First, we as humans can hold other humans accountable for their actions. Secondly, prove a god exists in order for there to be a god to dole out punishment fit for his station.