How far reaching are God's powers?

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Well, you're certainly free to expound upon some theory of moral responsibility for what we don't control - which would finally give an answer to the question that I've repeatedly asked.

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.

Perhaps I'm not cursed and your failures aren't a gods fault, you just didn't understand the terms?

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm. Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions.

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?

People commonly feel guilty for things they aren't guilty in any way for, and feeling a particular way about a thing is a poor certifier of the truth of that feelings content.  Feeling guilty and being guilty, clearly two different things.  Just like feeling ugly and being ugly, or feeling smart and being smart. One wonders how much this trouble could be multiplied if our sin nature tilts the scales.

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.

If murder is the case example, then...no, you won't be held accountable if you had no control over the death.  I can kick a can.  Then we have straight up crazy folks, who we don't believe can be held accountable for anything, because they're incompetent.  Then we have children, who we don't believe can be held to full account because they lack relevant knowledge.  

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.

Maybe, but our conscience may also be in error or...you know...cursed in some way.  Perhaps our sin-natuyre makes it so that our conscience reviles at the sight of objective good and seeks objective evil - all wonderfully and deliciously self decieving, ofc?  

Traditionally, though, we do think that incompetence or a lack of choice or a lack of control changes the moral nature of an act.  Those are all referenced as facts of a matter with moral import. If the facts are different, the conclusion will be different. Pretty straightforward.

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.

You manage to get things fantastically wrong in a stuffy old fundy way, lol.  Without some fundamental theory of -how- a person can be held morally responsible, we can't...cogently, declare them morally responsible.  Because I'm a moral realist who does believe in moral responsibility, I can provide a theory of how and why a person becomes morally responsible.  I can explain, for example..why it is john - who was driving the car, and not Steve, who was riding in the car, who is morally responsible for running over a child.  

Can you explain how Steve is responsible?

We could repeat this over again with any combination of variables and a consistent and thorough system of moral desert will yield predictable results.

We can wonder how a child, knowing right from wrong (in some sense) might be morally responsible for the starvation in the world. We could posit their moral responsibility for the things they eat, which compound that misery and starvation. They know right from wrong, they're eating, they don't actually control what they eat (or that people starve on account of it, or that they are physically compelled to eat) - but that shouldn't be a problem for a theory that assigns moral responsibility to actors on the basis of knowledge alone.

So, go ahead, let's see this chain of desert?

Steve can be morally responsible for the kid that John ran over, and the kid can be morally responsible for starvation in the world...and here is how..._______________?

It would have taken you less time and effort to answer the question than it has to fail at the same...even if your answer, as it very much looks to be, was "I have no fucking clue, I just know that they are".