For the love of Christ

[fester30]

As a former Christian, I think I understand the idea of Satan's responsibility versus man's accountability, even if the use of the words are a bit off in accordance with the dictionary/thesaurus.  I'm not a big fan of dictionaries, anyway, as they are there to describe the language the way it's most commonly used, not a rule book for using the language.  It's why words get added and definitions get altered due to common use.  Anyway...

The Christian beliefs I held at the time (feel free to laugh and scoff and such) were that when bad things happen, it's Satan's fault, as Satan is the root of all evil.  Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and Hitler were all Satan's fault.  Sometimes, however, humans are Satan's tools.  A human not strong in the Holy Spirit is susceptible to Satan's suggestions.  Any bad thoughts you might have are Satan putting temptations into your head.  So when Hitler and his followers exterminated millions, Satan was responsible for orchestrating the genocide by tempting Hitler and his followers, working in their minds to either make them crazy or power-hungry.  Hitler allowed this temptation to take hold of him by not having a close relationship with Jesus Christ and by not allowing the Holy Spirit to take hold in his heart.  Hitler chose to follow the dark path into all that murder.  Therefore, Hitler and Satan are actually BOTH hold responsibility for the evil acts that took place.  Accountability, as it was used, I believe, by the theist above, refers to the judgment of the soul after death.  Hitler will bear that sort of accountability in the afterlife when called into judgment.  His eternal soul will be cast into the pit of fire.  Satan's accountability (punishment) will be the same.  

While the words weren't quite used in line with dictionary definitions, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that he meant that both Satan and man are both responsible and accountable for bad things that happen at the hand of men.  

Part of my path away from Christianity was realizing how ridiculous this all sounded to me.  Humans used to blame God for bad things (Old Testament wrath of God stuff), such as Sodom and Gomorrah's disasters and Noah's flood and the genocides (killing of all women and children and livestock) of those dwelling in the land of Canaan when the Israelites invaded to take the land God promised them.  Now all bad things are Satan's fault, because God is good.  Seems to me one of the many shifts of religion to make it more palatable to people.  Who wants their God to be wrathful?  The Christians say fear God but nobody really wants to fear their God, because a wrathful, vengeful God doesn't leave one with much hope to avoid that wrath when you realize there is no way to live life without sinning against God's rules.

[xSilverPhinx]

Christians should be accountable for Christianity and all good things that happen in It's name. And if you want my opinion, their is only one person to be held responsible for the bad things; Satan.

I'm going to butt in here, but only briefly...

This is one sort of thinking that I have a personal problem with (I've met a few people who place responsibility for their failures and bad acts on satan). Why is it that some people have a real problem seeing their faults as their own failures instead of placing the blame on a thrid party (satan)?

That really doesn't make sense. People say that we have free will, except when we do bad things. 

In a religious mind everything is predestined anyway, free will is an illusion.

Unless of course you read "Finding Darwin God" Where in which the creation of evolution was a tool for god to use to trick biology into creating free will so we could choose to accept or reject a god. It's amazing to me that with every scientific discovery made god seems to become more and more mischievous and elusive, he used to come right out and tell people to build;d boats or climb mountains, now he is intentionally fooling us with convincing scientific evidence so he can pull an enormous gotcha at some point.

No, the religious argument goes that everything is predestined but we have free will. Don't ask me how they reconcile that, I have absolutely no idea.

What an odd apologetic stance...but Ken Miller is useful anyways, so I'll let him be.

[Twentythree]

Not sure what i was avoiding[...]

My whole post, save one sentence.

[...]it seems to me that Yahoo answers thinks were both right, so FACE! 

Yahoo answers thinks you're right for telling me that I have two similar and very often interchangeable terms confused as well as me being right that I didn't have those terms confused? That doesn't make any sense.

jeez bro, lets get all snippy about semantics and definitions. You are right your posts are the best, my insight is unfounded and wrong...whatever.

[Twentythree]

As a former Christian, I think I understand the idea of Satan's responsibility versus man's accountability, even if the use of the words are a bit off in accordance with the dictionary/thesaurus.
Part of my path away from Christianity was realizing how ridiculous this all sounded to me.  Humans used to blame God for bad things (Old Testament wrath of God stuff), such as Sodom and Gomorrah's disasters and Noah's flood and the genocides (killing of all women and children and livestock) of those dwelling in the land of Canaan when the Israelites invaded to take the land God promised them.  Now all bad things are Satan's fault, because God is good.  Seems to me one of the many shifts of religion to make it more palatable to people.  Who wants their God to be wrathful?  The Christians say fear God but nobody really wants to fear their God, because a wrathful, vengeful God doesn't leave one with much hope to avoid that wrath when you realize there is no way to live life without sinning against God's rules.

All great points, which all seem to reinforce the idea that I have about atheism being truly responsible for personal decisions. When there are no gods or daemons to blame for our moral inconsistencies, we must assume full responsibility (or accountability or whatever Davin) for ourselves. It's a big responsibility to take full ownership of yourself. That is why I feel it's actually a easier to believe. God is a crutch and a scapegoat, perfect for those afraid of their own reflection.

[Twentythree]

What an odd apologetic stance...but Ken Miller is useful anyways, so I'll let him be.

No doubt if more theist were like Ken, we might be a whole lot closer to understanding the truth about the nature of reality. But for every Miller there are 1000 or more Campings....evidence can be found at

www.fakeinternetstats.com

[Davin]

jeez bro, lets get all snippy about semantics and definitions.

If I was snippy at all, it was because you told me that I have terms confused when I didn't, and that you avoided all but one sentence in my post in which I took the time to address your points and to vet what I was saying. I take accusations very seriously and spend the time to evaluate the things I've said to either correct myself or drop what I said. I consider baselessly accusing me something to be very rude and I don't think I've been snippy, I was just asking for clarification of something you said that did not make sense to me.

You are right your posts are the best, my insight is unfounded and wrong...whatever.

How can I be right about my posts being the best if I've not said anything about my posts being the best? Are you no longer interested in discussion?

[Twentythree]

jeez bro, lets get all snippy about semantics and definitions.

If I was snippy at all, it was because you told me that I have terms confused when I didn't, and that you avoided all but one sentence in my post in which I took the time to address your points and to vet what I was saying. I take accusations very seriously and spend the time to evaluate the things I've said to either correct myself or drop what I said. I consider baselessly accusing me something to be very rude and I don't think I've been snippy, I was just asking for clarification of something you said that did not make sense to me.

You are right your posts are the best, my insight is unfounded and wrong...whatever.

How can I be right about my posts being the best if I've not said anything about my posts being the best? Are you no longer interested in discussion?

well i tried to diffuse the whole argument about definitions by making a joke about us being both right and finding a post on yahoo answers of all place that reiterated exactly what you had been saying. I am certainly still interested in discussion it's why i joined this forum. I was just trying to diffuse the situation a bit by being sarcastic. I can see also how it would be frustrating to have given so much and gotten so little...perhaps a bit selfish on my part. Give me a few and I'll address each of your preceding points in turn.

[Davin]

I am sorry, I didn't know that anything needed diffusing. I also hope you took what I said as I meant it (not as I said it), as relating to your interest of our dicussion on this thread.

I will begin taking a more light hearted and less strict approach to discussions with you. Here is a smiley: 
It is very rare for me to use smileys.

Also, don't worry about upsetting me, that is near impossible, but do let me know if I have upset you along with the why and how and I will attempt to correct my behavior.

[Twentythree]

If someone is actively trying to prevent a thing, how can you hold them accountable for other people doing the things? That's like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. should be held accountable for all the racism against blacks because he was an American. You're holding people to unreasonable standards.

I very well may be holding people to high standards or it's more likely that there may be a sliding scale of accountability or responsibility. I think that scale has to be addresses specifically by a person's level of knowledgeable participation. Ignorance is not a defense but it can be used as a deterrent. If I've been pouring my money and support into a business and then discover out of the blue that that business has been unethical and or committed a crime. My level of accountability will be lower than that of a person who was knowingly participating. I think what I can't do is excuse myself from accountability whatsoever. Me not being aware is my fault and thus makes me accountable at least to a degree for the unethical practices of the business I supported. So if let's say that I'm a catholic and had no knowledge that catholic priests were raping little boys. When I find out, I am certainly less accountable than those doing the raping but I am accountable nonetheless for being a participant. Any act of financial contribution, intellectual support or acts of conversion led to the situation where boys were being raped. You can look at this much the same way that lawmakers look at scenarios where bartenders/owners are being prosecuted in vehicular homicide cases where they themselves were not driving the car but knowingly acted in a manner that set up the scenario.

http://www.oceancitytoday.net/news/2011-03-25/Top_News/Lawmakers_want_bar_liability_for_drunken_driving.html

It seems completely unfair but nonetheless it is anchored by the same logic that I am using for people of faith.

Should Dr. King be held accountable for racism, in a way yes. If he paid taxes, voted and contributed his time to the work force he helped build the system in which racism was able to thrive. He also helped to reform that system. It may be that his knowledge and understanding of this accountability caused him to want to speak out against the system. He and others like him fully believe in the potential of the system, community or religion, but have to be an opponent of certain aspects of it. This does not however erase their participation and does not remove their accountability although it may dilute it somewhat in our general perception.

Not all Christians and not all sects promote bigotry, and even some that do both of these things are still not hypocrites because they believe the "love thy nieghbor" bit only applies to actual neighbors and not everyone in the world. This is one the major problems with your position: you're trying to establish their beliefs for them seemingly so that you can call them hypocrites.

I don't think that I'm trying to establish any beliefs. Perhaps the entire argument would be easier to digest if I restated "all" with a vast majority bordering on all. To be specific with Christianity I am using what I know of their beliefs to show that Christianity is hypocritical for the most part excluding of course those individuals or sects that have specifically rewritten the religion to be more progressive and inclusive. But even still, if I cut the tags off my wrangler jeans because I don't want to be associated with brett farvem that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that I still bought wrangler Jeans. (I kind of just reworded my car analogy into a jeans analogy, it's the bet one I've got)

I don't agree, only the people actually doing the things should be held accountable, I might go as far as to say that those that don't speak out against the things should be pointed out and asked to take a stand on some issues, but as for every Christian being responsible for all things Christian... no, that's irrational.

I'm not sure it's irrational. It does require that you look at accountability through a certain lens. To see that there is no one element of a system that is void of accountability for that system. It can be looked at on a sliding scale of direct responsibility as such. If a crime such as murder is committed the person who pulled the trigger is directly responsible, but the parents of the shooter have to be accountable for the product of their nurturing. Society also has to be held accountable for creating a scenario in which the parents weren't able to effectively raise their child. And thus every member of a society is responsible for both the good and evil in society because we all contribute. In some ways greater than other but we all own a stake in the product. So by extension should humanity in general be held accountable for religion as a whole. I think so absolutely. It was the fear and irrationality of our predecessors that set up a precedent for religious faith that still permeates and disrupts our modern society we in our current environment still support and condone religious freedom no matter how irrational and potentially dangerous they become.

I think the important thing here is that I'm proposing a solution and I'm not talking about the way things should be I am simply stating the way things are. No individual is a brainless automaton, everyone gives and takes form the system and therefore everyone should be held accountable for the good bad and the ugly that brings.

I would agree that your intentional ignorance helped out the financial crash, however my non-ignorance and attempts to inform people and to prevent it, according to you; means nothing and I'm still just as responsible for it as the people actually doing things to cause it. That's ridiculous.

So in the spirit of discussion you don't think the above passage was meant as a jibe regarding my intelligence. I'm sorry I didn't know I was in a discussion with Warren Buffet here.
If in fact you did you due diligence in the prevention of the financial crisis then you are less responsible for it but still should be held accountable because you paid taxes and I'm sure bought things on credit, or perhaps even paid a mortgage. I don't know your story but I find it hard to believe that for the past 2 decades you lived in a completely isolated bubble of economic independence. You may not have sold any subprime mortgages but, you knowingly contributed to the system that did. Unless you didn't in which case I'd love for you to tell me how.

Sure take responsibility for your part in it, not for what other people did. Take responsibility by voicing your opinion and attempt reform of the system or anything else, but to say that you're just as guilty as the dudes that actually did the things is unreasonable.

Not "just as" guilty but certainly guilty nonetheless. You cannot exist outside of existence, therefore you are accountable for your presence in existence. That is about as broad as I can put it.

[quote

The term hypocrite I think means someone doing something they told other people not to do, not someone supporting a system that sometimes does things they don't agree with. But go ahead, I'm just voicing my disagreement with it... which I guess means that even though I'm voicing my disagreement, I'm supporting your use of the word because I also support using English.

I think that the only variable is an individual's level of knowledgeable participation. Burt not knowing is not even 100% excusable because ignorance like it or not at any level is voluntary. You can always find truth it just depends on how hard you want to work for it. And yes, by using language you are supporting my use of language. We can both work to redefine it buy by doing so we are contributing and thus entitled to all the joy of religion and responsible for all it's sorrow.




(In direct response to your most recent post, I am not upset whatsoever. It was not just you who needed the diffusing, trust me, I get embroiled just as much as any other man. I do occasionally like to step back and remind myself that just by being here we are on the same team, we are both explorers in the uncharted territory of the mind. The things we discuss here are the things that will help shape our perceptions and actions in the future. Challenging one another is tremendously beneficial as it reinforces our place in conscious reality. there is not right and wrong just varying degrees of subjective interpretation.)

[The Black Jester]

All of this is lovely, Twentythree, but since "free will" is an illusion, so are "guilt" and "responsibility."

Just Kidding 

Maybe.

Actually, even if free will is an illusion, it would still be wise to treat people as if they acted freely.

[thedport]

I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL

[Davin]

If someone is actively trying to prevent a thing, how can you hold them accountable for other people doing the things? That's like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. should be held accountable for all the racism against blacks because he was an American. You're holding people to unreasonable standards.

I very well may be holding people to high standards[...]

Not "high standards"; "unreasonable standards".

[...]or it's more likely that there may be a sliding scale of accountability or responsibility. I think that scale has to be addresses specifically by a person's level of knowledgeable participation. Ignorance is not a defense but it can be used as a deterrent. If I've been pouring my money and support into a business and then discover out of the blue that that business has been unethical and or committed a crime. My level of accountability will be lower than that of a person who was knowingly participating. I think what I can't do is excuse myself from accountability whatsoever. Me not being aware is my fault and thus makes me accountable at least to a degree for the unethical practices of the business I supported. So if let's say that I'm a catholic and had no knowledge that catholic priests were raping little boys. When I find out, I am certainly less accountable than those doing the raping but I am accountable nonetheless for being a participant. Any act of financial contribution, intellectual support or acts of conversion led to the situation where boys were being raped.

I heavily disagree, the priests that were raping the boys were and are the only people responsible for the raping of the boys, but using your logic, so were the boys. The boys being raped should be held accountable for the priests raping them.

You can look at this much the same way that lawmakers look at scenarios where bartenders/owners are being prosecuted in vehicular homicide cases where they themselves were not driving the car but knowingly acted in a manner that set up the scenario.

http://www.oceancitytoday.net/news/2011-03-25/Top_News/Lawmakers_want_bar_liability_for_drunken_driving.html

It seems completely unfair but nonetheless it is anchored by the same logic that I am using for people of faith.

If you're using the same logic that I disagree with and find unreasonable, then this example is meaningless. This is unreasonable because the law makers aren't also trying to make the car manufacturers liable for selling cars but are trying to make bartenders liable for selling alchohol. We should make the mechanics that maintained the cars liable too. We should also hold everyone who drives cars liable because they helped contribute to the situation too. Hell even people that take the bus, or bought anything, or have ever had an alchoholic beverage. Jesus fucking Onubus, it's everyone's fault so we should all be fined $100 whenever a drunk driver kills someone! But wait a minute, everyone is also accountable for preventing drunk driving so we're at a zero sum here where people are both preventing and causing drunk driving. What you're doing is creating definitions so useless that we don't even need to have them and you can't point your finger (as you've already done) at a specific group and admonish them without also chastizing yourself, because you're just as responsible.

It's unreasonable to hold someone liable for the actions of another. So unless the bartenders are forcing beer down the peoples throats and forcing them to drive, then they shouldn't be held liable.

Should Dr. King be held accountable for racism, in a way yes. If he paid taxes, voted and contributed his time to the work force he helped build the system in which racism was able to thrive. He also helped to reform that system. It may be that his knowledge and understanding of this accountability caused him to want to speak out against the system. He and others like him fully believe in the potential of the system, community or religion, but have to be an opponent of certain aspects of it. This does not however erase their participation and does not remove their accountability although it may dilute it somewhat in our general perception.

And this is where I find it completely unreasonable, I suppose the boy being raped is responsible for being raped because he somehow or another contributed to the system that the rapist was a part of... All this is doing is saying that everyone is responsible for everything and making the words accountable and responsible effectively useless. Who's responsible for a boy being raped? We all are. Who's responsible for preventing a boy from being raped? We all are. So everyone is responsible for everything and nothing because my actions are the responsibility of other people. How do you point to a problem when you've created a giant scrambling of making every single problem everyone's problem? It makes saying that there is a problem useless because there is no solution.

Following your logic we are all hypocrites, being that we're all hypocrites, saying that a particular group of people are hypocrites (like you calling all Christians hypocrites), it superfluous at best.

Not all Christians and not all sects promote bigotry, and even some that do both of these things are still not hypocrites because they believe the "love thy nieghbor" bit only applies to actual neighbors and not everyone in the world. This is one the major problems with your position: you're trying to establish their beliefs for them seemingly so that you can call them hypocrites.

I don't think that I'm trying to establish any beliefs. Perhaps the entire argument would be easier to digest if I restated "all" with a vast majority bordering on all. To be specific with Christianity I am using what I know of their beliefs to show that Christianity is hypocritical for the most part excluding of course those individuals or sects that have specifically rewritten the religion to be more progressive and inclusive. But even still, if I cut the tags off my wrangler jeans because I don't want to be associated with brett farvem that is all fine and dandy except for the fact that I still bought wrangler Jeans. (I kind of just reworded my car analogy into a jeans analogy, it's the bet one I've got)

You don't have to worry about arguments being easy to digest, I completely understand your argument, which is why I disagree with it. Perhaps you can provide some data behind your supposition that it's the "vast majority" of Christians being hypocrites.

I don't agree, only the people actually doing the things should be held accountable, I might go as far as to say that those that don't speak out against the things should be pointed out and asked to take a stand on some issues, but as for every Christian being responsible for all things Christian... no, that's irrational.

I'm not sure it's irrational. It does require that you look at accountability through a certain lens. To see that there is no one element of a system that is void of accountability for that system. It can be looked at on a sliding scale of direct responsibility as such. If a crime such as murder is committed the person who pulled the trigger is directly responsible, but the parents of the shooter have to be accountable for the product of their nurturing. Society also has to be held accountable for creating a scenario in which the parents weren't able to effectively raise their child. And thus every member of a society is responsible for both the good and evil in society because we all contribute. In some ways greater than other but we all own a stake in the product. So by extension should humanity in general be held accountable for religion as a whole. I think so absolutely. It was the fear and irrationality of our predecessors that set up a precedent for religious faith that still permeates and disrupts our modern society we in our current environment still support and condone religious freedom no matter how irrational and potentially dangerous they become.

I think the important thing here is that I'm proposing a solution and I'm not talking about the way things should be I am simply stating the way things are. No individual is a brainless automaton, everyone gives and takes form the system and therefore everyone should be held accountable for the good bad and the ugly that brings.

So those boys should be held accountable for being raped by priests? In your view there are no victims because all are accountable for everything. So there are no attrocities that you can hold to religion because everyone is doing all this stuff to themselves.

So in the spirit of discussion you don't think the above passage was meant as a jibe regarding my intelligence. I'm sorry I didn't know I was in a discussion with Warren Buffet here.
If in fact you did you due diligence in the prevention of the financial crisis then you are less responsible for it but still should be held accountable because you paid taxes and I'm sure bought things on credit, or perhaps even paid a mortgage. I don't know your story but I find it hard to believe that for the past 2 decades you lived in a completely isolated bubble of economic independence. You may not have sold any subprime mortgages but, you knowingly contributed to the system that did. Unless you didn't in which case I'd love for you to tell me how.

It was not a jibe regarding your intelligence, it was using your own words as you described yourself. By using the word "economic" you're already implying dependence, which means that "economically independent" is an oxymoron. Now draw a line of accountability from people actually doing things to cause the financial crash to my accountbility, without skipping anything important, making any generalizations, making any sweeping statements or jumps in logic.

Not "just as" guilty but certainly guilty nonetheless. You cannot exist outside of existence, therefore you are accountable for your presence in existence. That is about as broad as I can put it.

So we're all guilty of everything everyone is doing and everything everyone will do. So either you're being unreasonable by calling Christians hypocrites by virtue of being Christian or we're all hypocrites and it's as definitially useful to call Christians "hypocrites" as it is to call Christians "air breathing mammals".

I think that the only variable is an individual's level of knowledgeable participation. Burt not knowing is not even 100% excusable because ignorance like it or not at any level is voluntary. You can always find truth it just depends on how hard you want to work for it. And yes, by using language you are supporting my use of language. We can both work to redefine it buy by doing so we are contributing and thus entitled to all the joy of religion and responsible for all it's sorrow.

So I'm both supporting and not supporting your use of language, how interesting, can you explain how this is possible?

(In direct response to your most recent post, I am not upset whatsoever. It was not just you who needed the diffusing, trust me, I get embroiled just as much as any other man. I do occasionally like to step back and remind myself that just by being here we are on the same team, we are both explorers in the uncharted territory of the mind. The things we discuss here are the things that will help shape our perceptions and actions in the future. Challenging one another is tremendously beneficial as it reinforces our place in conscious reality. there is not right and wrong just varying degrees of subjective interpretation.)

No, I did not need any diffusing, trust me, there is nothing you can do to even mildly irritate me. I'd appreciate it if you stopped making baseless speculations about me, because those are just a waste of time and I already tend to get very verbose and don't need to add more to my response by telling you that you're assumptions about me are wrong.

[Twentythree]

Ok fine, I won't assume anything about ye of superior mind and unflappable constitution. You do get kind of brazen , I mean we can both admit that right.

"there is nothing you can do to even mildly irritate me...[Harrumph]" That is making a generalization about me...you have no idea how annoying I have the potential to be. I don't feel like I know you well enough yet, but give me enough time, and I bet I could annoy you...at least a little bit.

"speculations about me, are just a waste of time and I already tend to get very verbose"

This seems close to annoyance, Mr. Verbose. I actually appreciate the time you take to articulate your points.

I think that at this point I want to try to back this train up a little bit. I believe that humanity, and possibly consciousness itself are not a bunch of individual bits, but a larger thriving system, we are all specialist primates, using our specialist functions to drive the organism. What we have discovered in the arguments above is that if we trace any act of an individual back far enough then yes we are all accountable. Like I said above, you cannot remove yourself from reality, therefore we all  Accountable for reality. I mean that says it all, ultimately yes we are all responsible for everything. That is what I believe, that is where atheism has brought me, to a place of full acceptance of the insignificance and the impact of each one of my infinite decisions. I do not have a problem taking accountability for humanity I am a part of it...a larger part of some aspects, a smaller part in others I do not try to exclude myself from the whole it's not possible. My problem lies in the fact that most people particularly those of faith never take full accountability not only for themselves but the systems they support, in particular their religion. So I just feel like maybe this debate has begun to lose the spirit of my initial post and has come down to arguments over semantics and has gotten to that point where explanation has left the central idea dry and withered. Which is perhaps the state in which it belongs.

[Twentythree]

I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL

I love it, great topic! Happy Birthday sir. Like i said there are sliding scales of accountability. What do you think about the insane, should they be excluded from accountability for their actions. when a person has a different conscious experience can we hope to hold them accountable for anything they do? Not really a question for a "religion" forum, but I think this topic jumped those tracks about a page and a half ago.

[The Black Jester]

I have to say there are certain problems I have with the interpratation of logic. Like, I do not see the logic behind, in many states if you know someone is going to commit suicide but do nothing to try and stop it, you can be charged with invaulentary MANSLAUGHTER! I love that word, it looks and sounds ridiculous. MANSLAUGHTER! Oh, not in a million years did I think that my first post would be the foundation to such healthy debate. Yay, and on my birthday. LOL

I love it, great topic! Happy Birthday sir. Like i said there are sliding scales of accountability. What do you think about the insane, should they be excluded from accountability for their actions. when a person has a different conscious experience can we hope to hold them accountable for anything they do? Not really a question for a "religion" forum, but I think this topic jumped those tracks about a page and a half ago.

In your analysis you have been extremely vague about what it would practically mean to hold others accountable in your system of guilt.  Please elucidate.

And where, exactly, can you draw the line with "insanity" - if there are influences on our choices, can any of us really be held accountable for anything, since these influences are either environmental or biological, neither of which we have much control over.