What is God responsible for?

[Willum]

Many things were done in God's name:
But what is he responsible for?

When the Catholic Nazi Germany attempts a genocide, a man is blamed.
When Hebrews commit genocide on the Canaan, it is his will.

We have plagues, on Catholic countries, for example. The Dark Ages were committed in Yahweh's name. Were they?

Why would Yahweh plunge the civilization of Rome, with health, farming and sanitation, back into the primitive squalor of ancient Jerusalem, if so?

If not, why did he not stop such a terror? It seems to be in His purview.

How does one determine if an act is done in God's will, or men's will?
Does the Bible tell us?

Understanding that free will is a constraint - we can also understand that mob's and large numbers of people lose free will, does this fall into God's purview, then?

In short, how does one know what God is responsible for;
Any group decision?
A decision influenced by prayer?

The position is that presented by Romans 13:

Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power. 2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished. 3 Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it. 4 After all, they are Gods servants, and it is their duty to help you.

The position of the OP is: those atrocities committed by governments, God's will, and he is responsible for them.

[bluethread]

God is responsible for about 95% of what is done n his name. God's passion is completed in the sympathy of men. God and Man together do it.

OK, what now? Who is going to bring a deity to account and how?

Its not a question of bringing a deity to account. God is not "a deity" God is a reality , the way it should be. God is the categorical imperative to do the right thing. Which is for Man to respond to. It is a question of bringing Man to account. God is not the problem , Man is.

First, that is your doctrine, which requires Scriptural justification, in this forum. Second, that is not the question of the OP. The OP is not talking about a "problem". It is asking for what Adonai is responsible, in this forum, according the the Scriptures. My question is His is responsible to whom.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to marco]

All I meant was that consciously thinking abut God's presence in your subconscious is not the same thing as actually experiencing it. I'm claiming to have had a mystical experience, though I have good reason to believe that every creature subconsciously has a direct, immediate experience of God's presence.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 156 by Blastcat]

There are five senses: taste, smell, hearing, seeing, touch. When I consciously hear a sound, that is the end product of a long chain of events in my brain, al of which are beneath the threshold of my consciousness. When you consciously see something, what happened first first was that that cells of your eye had an empathic experience with, say the redness, of the light. This feeling experience was shared with the cells of your retina, who shared it with the optic nerve. Those cells shared their experience with other parts of the brain, until eventually you become conscious aware of the red light. So your conscious , sensory experience of seeing was initially a purely affective experience.

There are many simple organisms, with little or no sensory apparatus, function quite well.

Our identification with our sense organs is a purely affective connection. We do not see the ye make us see, but we feel it do so.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

I'd be interested on your thoughts here:
http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... 593#838593

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 157 by Blastcat]

I did not say that I was aware right now of a subconscious event taking place in my brain. I am positing there is a subconscious experience of God, true. But having a direct, immediate experience of such an event is a different story.

Yes, we can expand our consciousness, raise subconscious events into our conscious experience, but there is no easy, definite way to do so. Christian mystics tried all sorts of meditative techniques, but said you couldn't guarantee the results. However, the mystical writers reported having had a direct, immediate experience of God's presence. That's what St. Teresa of Avila talks about in her famous work "interior Castles."

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 164 by Willum]

OK, I checked it out, but I don't understand the OP, what exactly you are asking.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to marco]

OK, thanks for clarifying your position on beauty. To me, the universe appears all alive, full of feeling, an organism; and a complex organism always has a mind, i.e., God, in this case. So I don't believe a Deity devoid of all feeling, as per classical this, crated this wondrous universe so full of feelings. Only a Cosmic Artist could do the job, not the Ruthless Moralist or Ruling Caesar or Unmoved Mover. I certainly do not believe it is all a product of chance. It took a real artist to paint the Mona Lisa, not someone just heaving paint at a canvas and hoping. Until you prove to me that a tornado moving through a railway junk yard produces a stealth aircraft, I opt for God.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 156 by Blastcat]

There are five senses: taste, smell, hearing, seeing, touch.

There are at least six senses. There is also the sense of balance.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to bluethread]

No, psychology recognizes five, not six, senses. I'm sticking with that. I mean, I could add on "common sense," etc. But that gets awkward. I'm just going to stick to the five.

[marco]

That is not relevant on this forum, since the authority of the Scriptures is presumed. According the Scriptures, Adonai is responsible for everything that happens. Therefore, the question is how we should then live.

You are right again, and I said that I uphold the proposition here that God exists. When we reach a contradiction that seems, impertinently, to challenge our axiom then we state there is a problem, while of course still accepting our axiom. It was your observation that seemed to challenge the axiom but you have wisely returned us to its acceptance. Close thing! Go well.