Questions for theists.

[ElDinero]

Allowing for the opportunity for something to happen is not the same as encouraging it to happen, or being accountable for those who do those things. Do you charge the city of Las Vegas when a man hire's a prostitute on the strip? The city knows it happens, and could put an absolute end to all of it, but it is in no way responsible for the actions of every individual within it's JURISDICTION or creative control.

So....God is no more powerful than the Las Vegas Police Department? That explains a LOT. Thanks for the clarification.

[Statler Waldorf]

So god ordains things to happen but is not morally responsible for them?

Depends on whether he actively or passively ordains them. He is morally responsible for all of the good we see because He grants us common grace allowing us to even do good, He is not morally responsible for the evil deeds of men because He simply passively allows them to do what their evil hearts wish to do. We see this after Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery, Joseph tells them later that they meant it for evil but God meant it for good. So the good that came from the situation was all God’s doing, the evil act was man’s responsibility because man had evil intentions in committing the act.

SW,

I think the reason most atheists don't get moral standards and personal accountability, is because they've seen personal accountability thrown out of the window by most Christians in their experience. You know the type, blame God for everything, rely on him for everything. I think I can see their frustrations.

Hey Tack, good to talk to you again,

I can see that, I think part of the problem is that many Christians do not understand the Biblical teachings on moral accountability. They think that people’s moral accountability is equal when it comes to good and evil deeds, when actually what we see is that men are responsible for their evil deeds but God is responsible for their good deeds because apart from His grace there are none who do good (Romans 3).

So....God is no more powerful than the Las Vegas Police Department? That explains a LOT. Thanks for the clarification.

The LVPD is not omnipotent, so I’d say he’s a bit more powerful.

[ElDinero]

The LVPD is not omnipotent, so I’d say he’s a bit more powerful.

Right there with ya buddy. So we can agree that tack's comparison was stupid and pointless, on the basis that the LVPD did not create the people of Las Vegas as well as all their traits, and they aren't aware of everything that happens within the city?

[Statler Waldorf]

Right there with ya buddy. So we can agree that tack's comparison was stupid and pointless, on the basis that the LVPD did not create the people of Las Vegas as well as all their traits, and they aren't aware of everything that happens within the city?

All analogies when dealing with God are imperfect, I understood the point he was driving at though; you didn’t?

[ElDinero]

I understood it, but it was fundamentally flawed and therefore useless. God's supposed omnipotence is crucial to the analogy, because unlike the city of LV, he knows that all this stuff is going on. Not only does he know it's going on, he created the inhabitants, put the prostitutes there and gave the inhabitants the characteristics that made their decision to seek out a hooker inevitable. Since he set up all these parameters, unlike LVPD, he IS accountable for everything that happens in his 'city'.

[Statler Waldorf]

Since he set up all these parameters, unlike LVPD, he IS accountable for everything that happens in his 'city'.

According to whom?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well certainly not according to you. The "city" could flood an entire ghetto, drowning the inhabitants, set a few blocks on fire for good measure, send in riot police with the overt intention of killing them and seizing their property, and somehow, someway, this would all be the fault of the residents of the ghetto (to you).

According to whom? Those whose moral compass functions, unlike your own.

[Statler Waldorf]

Well certainly not according to you. The "city" could flood an entire ghetto, drowning the inhabitants, set a few blocks on fire for good measure, send in riot police with the overt intention of killing them and seizing their property, and somehow, someway, this would all be the fault of the residents of the ghetto (to you).

Haha, more like the city could all rebel. Rather than destroying everyone like they deserve the heads of the city could decide to save a few and give the others justice.

According to whom? Those whose moral compass functions, unlike your own.

How do you know it is their moral compass that works and not mine?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's easy to figure that out, you're defending xenocide justified by the might of a god. They aren't. You're malfunctioning. Of course I know that you don't actually leverage these principles and justifications in your day to day life. You have a special set of rules for your very special imaginary friend. Without them the concept isn't manageable, so I understand.

[tackattack]

*Bolding by me

I understood it, but it was fundamentally flawed and therefore useless. God's supposed omnipotence is crucial to the analogy, because unlike the city of LV, he knows that all this stuff is going on. Not only does he know it's going on, he created the inhabitants, put the prostitutes there and gave the inhabitants the characteristics that made their decision to seek out a hooker inevitable. Since he set up all these parameters, unlike LVPD, he IS accountable for everything that happens in his 'city'.

While I agree it was fundamentally incapable of being as all inclusive of God's omnipotence, it was allegorical. Sorry if it frustrated you as you seem frustrated. I can see here though that you missed the point, as per my bolding. He created the inhabitants, yes. He did not make sin the inevitable conclusion. He didn't give the allegorical "you" a sinfull nature to seek a prostitute, any more than he gave "you" the desire to be a prostitute. That is a result of man's decision not to trust in God. Being a Christian doesn't make you any less personally accountable for your actions. In fact it holds you to both the laws of the land and to God's laws, which arguably would be more personally accountable. The pont was that it's Christian standard dogma that sin is seperation from God. However you look at the situation as a Christian, if you're sinning you're seperate from God's will and therefore can't hold God accountable, as you're not under his guidance, empowerment or protection.

---

Hey Tack, good to talk to you again,

I can see that, I think part of the problem is that many Christians do not understand the Biblical teachings on moral accountability. They think that people’s moral accountability is equal when it comes to good and evil deeds, when actually what we see is that men are responsible for their evil deeds but God is responsible for their good deeds because apart from His grace there are none who do good (Romans 3).

---

Good to talk to you again as well. I seperate it a little differently. I believe we all have free will and are therfore ultimately accountble for our own use of our personal morality. God is a guide or compass for improving our individual accountability, but I don't think he's any more responsible for our bad, than he is for our good. Now our works (which I believe was what you were getting at) are for naught without being empowered through following Christ. Part of living a victorious life though under Grace is accepting that we are all sinners and can't accepting that Grace so that we can receive salvation and show works and fruit from God through us.