Matthew Hunter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:48:58PM -0500, "Peter H. Granzeau" > <pgranzeau at cox.net> wrote: >> At 16:37 11/27/2002 -0600, Matthew Hunter wrote: >>> While I agree with the sentiment that God has a lot of hard >>> questions to answer, taking responsibility for his creations is >>> not on the same level. Are you responsible for the actions of >>> your children once they reach adulthood and attain free will? No, >>> but then again, I am not omnipotent, either. > > Does it matter? > > You are however responsible for the influence you have over someone (your direct actions usually caused it, not always mind you but mostly) and your kids are especially susceptible to your influence. while the statement You are not responsible for the actions of others may be true always it's almost always misused, mostly it's used to defend one's innocence for having no ability to control another person therefore he shouldn't be subject to the responsibility. It's like saying Verra shared no responsibility (based on her influence) for the king of Elde island being assassinated. Ha! If your action brings enough influence over someone else's actions (maybe saying consciously is important, then again maybe not) do in fact share some of the responsibility of that action. Here's proof positive, at least in our justice system: Hiring a hit man is a crime, Being a hit man is crime, when they catch the hit man the hit man can be treated as it was less of a crime to divulge the 'boss guy who hired him' You are not responsible for the actions of others: It's a statement that in of itself can't be argued with and I generally believe to be true as well, it's usage is constantly abused. You can certainly be completely responsible for the re-actions of someone to you, that is how self defense is explained, walk youself through it if you need to.