BibleForums Christian Message Board

Quote from: Athanasius on May 11, 2024, 07:45:13 AM

Quote from: ProDeo on May 11, 2024, 01:05:26 AM

Learning my youngest grandson chess. He has talent.

I mean, anyone playing h4 to threaten any impending castling!

(And a new set?)

New set indeed, and if you look well the king and queen are wrongly placed, I let him...

Quote from: Athanasius on April 10, 2024, 04:59:16 PM

Quote from: Oscar_Kipling on April 10, 2024, 03:40:08 PM

Quote from: Athanasius on April 10, 2024, 03:21:54 PM

In other words, responsibility and blameworthiness are different things for a reason.

Okay, could you explain the difference as you see it?

The basic premise is that one can be responsible but not blameworthy or blameworthy but not responsible. In keeping with the theme, we could say that God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit of the tree, but Adam and Eve are blameworthy for eating the fruit.

Or, someone might bear no responsibility in the fact that Satan is whispering in their ear, though they'd be responsible for acting.

It's more nuanced than that on examination, but that's the fundamental difference. Not everyone who is blameworthy is also responsible, and not everyone who is responsible is also blameworthy. It's rarely a clean distinction.

hmm, I don't have any particular issue with making this distinction if it helps to clarify an argument. However I do not see how this is functionally different than clarifying by specifying the domains of responsibility outside of semantics. I'd say that in your Adam and Eve example God is responsible for allowing Adam and Eve to be in a situation where they're offered the fruit, While Adam and eve are responsible for acting within their ability to eat or not eat the fruit. The domains of responsibility are different although they arguably have overlap if you specify a different scope or relationship. I have always maintained that depending on various properties, relationships or composition of the God & universe a person is asserting the domains may be completely divorced from one another or they may intersect in a way that they share some responsibility for the same event in equal or unequal proportion. I been saying that I think the boundaries can go from perfectly sharp to indistinguishable and everything in between all depending, and all while only using responsibility.

While i'm thinking about it, I suppose in another sense responsibility and blame at least in my mind can be differentiated from one another in that responsibility can be thought of as influence over the causal chain that culminated in the event in question, while blame can be thought of as a value judgement that is related more to the intention or agency of the actor and less about the degree of influence the actor had on the causal chain. Still even this I feel is just an abstraction layer that is more useful in rhetoric than
 in a framework that better captures some meaningful distinction on a fundamental level; I say this because agency imo is just another way of specifying a scope or domain of influence imo.

What do you think?

Quote from: Oscar_Kipling on April 10, 2024, 11:44:13 AM

Quote from: RabbiKnife on April 10, 2024, 10:38:34 AM

Satan: Origins...

Remember, the biblical narrative is that Satan/Lucifer  (Satan is more of a title, not a name) was created as the ultimate of angelic creation, and indications or at least inferences are that Satan aka Lucifer was the greatest in praise and glorifying God, until his free will asserted itself and Lucifer decided to grab the crown from God's hand.

So, Lucifer was not created to be evil, but became evil because of his own choices.

Now, I know folks like to argue God as ultimate cause vis a vis creation with a free will, but that's a bit of an old saw.

The insertion of Lucifer/Satan into the biblical narrative is simply historical, and sets up the ultimate good vs. evil showdown, and magnifies the glory of God in His ultimate sacrifice for the sake of His creation.

Forest for the trees, yes, of course you are right, Lucifer does do something unique in the final boss battle. As unsatisfying as that is for me personally it at least provides some rationale for why the devil persists, although not why he isn't exclusively reserved for the boss fight from a logical/utility standpoint though.

It does stand to reason that if he only showed up for the boss fight it would be tougher to build the dramatic tension. It also tracks that because Christianity is very much a religion that is tightly coupled to and transmitted through narratives. Therefore prioritizing narrative makes sense as utility to the narrative is one of the primary metrics. I can capitulate to that however uneasily it sits for me personally as it feels a little meta my tastes.

Anyway, old as the saw may be, isn't God the ultimate cause of everything except himself? The buck has to stop with God at the end of the day. Besides you already argue that Lucifer is both a crucial plot device and the ugly friend that makes God more attractive by contrast, the intentionality & necessity of Lucifer's heel turn seems pretty well baked into the plan. Could it be called improvisation and if so in what way? Are there some further consequences of more directly stating that God did Satan on purpose? That is to say, you are already conceding that evil is a critical component of God's plan, the obliqueness of that concession doesn't change anything so far as I can tell because logically this property commutes.
 
I guess more importantly, how does this fact feel to you? How did you come to discover and accept that the Satan Character arc is there to make a more engaging story? Are there any other examples  from the bible that only make sense to you in the context of improving biblical narrative taking priority over any sort of practical necessity borne from the logic of the laws of the universe?

I don't concede that Satan is in the narrative just to improve or demonstrate our learned ideals of contrast or dramatic tension.  Satan is in the narrative because it is historical, mostly.  His attributes give context to other actions, including those of humans.

I also don't concede the old saw that "God as first cause is responsible for every cause thereafter."  That reeks of moral relativism, to which I do not adhere.  It's a false premise as it ultimately attempts to alleviate the second actor of moral culpability.  Of course, the issue of evil actual proves the existence of God, as without a perfect, there is no basis on which to argue the existence of the imperfect.

If "the buck has to stop with God" as first cause, then freedom of the will is a fantasy and is meaningless.  The buck doesn't stop with God because He is first cause; Every creation that is rational an possessing free will is responsible for his or her actions.

The car dealer is not responsible for the negligent driving of the purchaser as a result of the providing the vehicle in the first instance.  We even recognize this fact in common law and in statute with the concept of the "Supervening tortfeasor."  Man is the chiefest of supervening tortfeasors.

Quote from: Athanasius on March 22, 2024, 02:44:03 PM

What's the point of this thread?

I got to post a scene from 12 Monkeys. That's always a win.

Fundamentalists hate it when people ask questions.
Charismatics hate it when people give answers.

A fair description or not?