How far reaching are God's powers?

[MilesAbbott81]

 Says you, apparently, but while we intuitively understand and it is in no way controversial how a moral agent with a moral choice can be held morally responsible...right or wrong...it remains a complete mystery as to how we can be held morally responsible for what we can't control, when we have no choice, or when we are -not- moral agents.

I never said we shouldn't be held responsible for what we can't control, so don't put words in my mouth.

I did say that God takes our lack of control into account when determining our punishment. It is a factor; God is not unreasonable.

However, whether you can control your actions or not doesn't change the fact that you knowingly commit evil against your conscience. How is this so difficult to understand, that such a thing is wrong and must entail consequences, particularly given the purpose of the experience (for the billionth time - to learn)?

Children touch hot stoves through no fault of their own, yet it still burns them, as it must, in order for them to learn to not touch it. It does not take a genius to understand this. Children also do wicked things that they know are wrong but can't resist because they've not yet been disciplined to resist. One can't blame them, at least not entirely, but one can and must discipline them so that they no longer behave wickedly.

You are seem utterly incapable of understanding this rather simple concept, and I can only chalk it up, once again, to blindness. It's like trying to explain to people that something cannot come from nothing, yet you fools insist that somehow an eternal universe is possible, or that somehow, some way, something actually DID come from nothing. Your brains do not function as they should. You are cursed.

An honest assessment of the moral field doesn't lead me to anything even remotely resembling the idea that people can be morally responsible for what they do not control.  That is, after all, why I keep asking you how that works.  We can be practically responsible, or instrumentally responsible.  I can kick a can that sets into motion a chain of events that leads to the annihilation of all human life.  Instrumental responsibilities, like instrumental goods, are not moral responsibilities, or moral goods.  I can kick that can, and it can lead to complete annihilation (and kicking the can can be good-for annihilation, and annihilation can be good-for producing a human free world), but how am I morally responsible?  By what theory?  By what means?  By what justification?  By what tic or facet or mystery of reality?  I couldn't have known it would do so...and can't even imagine it, physically incapable of imaging how my kicking a can would do that.  I certainly don't intend, in the kicking of a can, to annihilate all human life.  If I also have no choice.....what's left?  What possible avenue of moral responsibility remains?  What hypothetical chain of desert?

Gonna get around to it or not?  I understand moral responsibility in the case of a moral agent with a moral choice.  Help me to understand the moral responsibility of a non moral agent with no moral choice.

You ask questions that I've already answered, but which you ignore because you don't like my answers.

Who says you are a non-moral agent (if I am understanding what you mean by that - one who has a sense of morality)? I made it clear that we have consciences. You may not have the ability to control your moral actions, but that doesn't mean you can't tell right from wrong. Because you have this ability, I say that makes you responsible. Why wouldn't it? If you feel shame, if you feel guilt, then aren't you guilty? Should you have no shame? It's preposterous to argue that if you kill someone, you shouldn't feel guilt just because you can't control your actions. It's similarly preposterous to argue that there should be no consequences for the murder just because the murderer has no control. It's still murder, it's still evil, and since God uses evil to teach, and that teaching requires punishment, then the perpetrator must be held responsible.

When one violates one's conscience, one commits an act of evil. One's ability to control the act does not change the nature of the act, and certainly doesn't nullify the need for justice.

The real problem here is your persistence in attempting to excuse the sinner. You clearly have no interest in taking responsibility for your sins, which is no surprise since you are obviously impenitent. Your argument does not hold water. You're guilty. Deal with it.