From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Subject: Re: Responsibility & blame (was: Changing nature of God)
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:34:22 GMT

chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone) writes:

>In article <c9037395.718004897@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au> c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee) writes:
>>There are at least 2 usages of the word 'responsible':
>>1) Who's responsible? --> Who's to blame?
>>2) Who's responsible? --> Who's in charge?

>This may be the case. But when it comes to managerial decisions the entity that
>is in charge is also the entity that is held to blame when a particular plan
>that he or she has divised does not work. Ok, it is the case that this in itself
[ parts deleted ]
I do agree with your logic there, Chris; just not all of your premises.
[***NOTE those who were wondering wot I meant by 'pure subjectivity' in the
post "God, man & sin": ***]
I guess that's where pure subjectivity comes into play. I believe that God's
plan/scheme is in no way 'stuffed up' by man's sin (A), whereas you believe it
*is* (& I think we may have some differences in our respective concepts of God's
all-knowing powers too). Different premises -> different arguements.

Hmm, I s'pose that means "end of discussion"...

>>When we normally think of bad things happening (the famine in Somoa, say),
								^^^^^
				(This is, of course, meant to be Somalia :))

>>we may think (1) about God. ie. God could have stopped this; God's to blame.
>>Yes, God has the power to stop it, but he chooses not to AT THIS TIME.
>>If God allows us to sin at this time, to let us see how bad sin really is,
>>then wouldn't it just defeat the purpose if God were to intervene at times
>>of war/famine/etc. to SAVE US FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS?
>And what does Jesus do?
He does lots of things. In this context, I think u r interested in:
He works with his people & leads his Church & prepares for his return.

>moral claims about God, or better yet recognise that all we can do is try
>and predicate of God things that we can understand, and that because God is
>so huge, this will necessarily lead to contradictions in the definition, or
>a definition that does not describe a wide enough part of God. Effectively,
>we should distinguish between the idol of god that we have to form so that
>we can get any sort of grasp on Deity, and Deity itself.
It is true that we cannot possibly understand God fully - nor are we expected
to -  but I don't believe the "necessarily lead to contradictions..." part.
			       ^^^^^^^^^^^
Pure subjectivity again?

Cheers,
Helen.

(A) Take the loose example of a car trip. Say John is in charge of getting us
from X to Y. Along the way, we get a flat tire from a nail in the road. We
might say that John's to blame for stuffing up the whole trip cos he was in
charge & he knew we were going through roads that have alot of nails. But John
knew that this might happen; that's why he brought along the spare, jack,
NRMA card & VISA, & insisted we head off an hour early. He'll just change the
flat & buy a new spare, & soon enough we will get to Y. I don't think the
trip was ruined.
--
My .sig by H. Lee. Brackets Miss, brackets. This .sig goes as follows and
begins now. All VAXes are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle
and then thin again at the far end. That is my .sig, it is mine, and belongs
to me and I own it, and what it is too.            c9037395@cs.newcastle.edu.au