Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

God Watching incidents …

dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:27:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A person is standing in the balcony of his residence and is watching the traffic and getting entertainment.

Suppose an accident takes place on the road, you cannot blame the observer for being responsible for the accident.

You are well aware of the traffic rules and yet you overlooked the rules. So you are responsible for the accident.

The observation and entertainment of any spectator is not at all connected with the accident.

The railway authorities prepare the railway guide. It gives the route to Mumbai and other cities. It does not create any desire in your mind to go to Mumbai. If you desire to go to Mumbai, it explains the route and it does not insist that you should take up the journey to Mumbai. Neither the guide nor the authorities are responsible for your benefit or loss in Mumbai.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 9:33:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:27:16 PM, dattaswami wrote:
A person is standing in the balcony of his residence and is watching the traffic and getting entertainment.

Suppose an accident takes place on the road, you cannot blame the observer for being responsible for the accident.

You are well aware of the traffic rules and yet you overlooked the rules. So you are responsible for the accident.

The observation and entertainment of any spectator is not at all connected with the accident.

The railway authorities prepare the railway guide. It gives the route to Mumbai and other cities. It does not create any desire in your mind to go to Mumbai. If you desire to go to Mumbai, it explains the route and it does not insist that you should take up the journey to Mumbai. Neither the guide nor the authorities are responsible for your benefit or loss in Mumbai.

You prepare some food, appealing in taste, smell, and looks. You poison the food. You put it where someone will discover it and want to eat it.

You didn't make the person want food; god did that. You didn't make the person's senses such that the poisoned food would appeal to her; god did that. You didn't cause her to pass by the place where you put the food to tempt her.

I guess you are right: You are completely innocent of whatever harm befalls her if she eats the poison.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 10:04:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:27:16 PM, dattaswami wrote:
A person is standing in the balcony of his residence and is watching the traffic and getting entertainment.

Suppose an accident takes place on the road, you cannot blame the observer for being responsible for the accident.

You are well aware of the traffic rules and yet you overlooked the rules. So you are responsible for the accident.

The observation and entertainment of any spectator is not at all connected with the accident.

The railway authorities prepare the railway guide. It gives the route to Mumbai and other cities. It does not create any desire in your mind to go to Mumbai. If you desire to go to Mumbai, it explains the route and it does not insist that you should take up the journey to Mumbai. Neither the guide nor the authorities are responsible for your benefit or loss in Mumbai.

You're comparing the impersonal relationship of powerless mortals to the omnipotence of God. How much did you think about this analogy before posting it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 10:09:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 9:33:47 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 6/21/2012 9:27:16 PM, dattaswami wrote:
A person is standing in the balcony of his residence and is watching the traffic and getting entertainment.

Suppose an accident takes place on the road, you cannot blame the observer for being responsible for the accident.

You are well aware of the traffic rules and yet you overlooked the rules. So you are responsible for the accident.

The observation and entertainment of any spectator is not at all connected with the accident.

The railway authorities prepare the railway guide. It gives the route to Mumbai and other cities. It does not create any desire in your mind to go to Mumbai. If you desire to go to Mumbai, it explains the route and it does not insist that you should take up the journey to Mumbai. Neither the guide nor the authorities are responsible for your benefit or loss in Mumbai.

You prepare some food, appealing in taste, smell, and looks. You poison the food. You put it where someone will discover it and want to eat it.

You didn't make the person want food; god did that. You didn't make the person's senses such that the poisoned food would appeal to her; god did that. You didn't cause her to pass by the place where you put the food to tempt her.

I guess you are right: You are completely innocent of whatever harm befalls her if she eats the poison.

Very Salient to the OP.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 10:20:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/21/2012 10:04:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
You're comparing the impersonal relationship of powerless mortals to the omnipotence of God. How much did you think about this analogy before posting it?

Reply: My earlier post says that God is neither responsible for the enjoyment nor for the sufferance of the soul. The soul gets the results as per its deeds.

Now, your simile is not correct. God created the sinful path without destroying the virtuous path (sin & virtue are opposite, i suppose). So, where is the question of poisoning the good food because anybody can adopt virtuous path or sinful path as desired by him/her.

Had God destroyed the virtuous path, your simili may be correct but your assumption is not true. So, fruit depends on the path chosen (sinful/virtuous).

Regarding His omnipotence, your question can be like this.

The Lord created fruits for both good and bad actions. Why should He create a fruit for an action? Let there be acts without fruits.

The child does mischief, but the mother or father does not punish. In that case, there is no fruit for that action. Similarly, let the Lord not punish our sins.

If you expect like this, the answer is that the Lord does not behave like father or mother but behaves only as a teacher. The child gets spoiled if the mischief is tolerated. We are seeing this in the world. The teacher will never tolerate the spoiling of the child and therefore, He will not tolerate the mischief. So, the punishment is only to bring a change but not with revenge.