Am I Responsible Or Is He

Luke in The Last Jedi said a Jedi Master was responsible for the training and creation of Darth Vader. What does that mean? Does he blame Obi-Wan?

In essence, that is exactly what he is saying. But, I think his point goes a bit deeper than that.In the novelization to the Last Jedi, Leia has a scene towards the beginning where she reaches out with her feelings to touch others….feel their emotions by riding the wave of the Force.She describes being able to feel Luke halfway across the galaxy because of how bright his presence was in the Force. After losing Ben to the Dark Side, and Luke’s self imposed exile, she noted she felt his presence less and less over time.Luke shuts himself off to the force, because he seems to feel that, no matter what he does, the rise of the light will always be matched by the rise of the dark.His greatest fear was that he would train the next Vader. When Ben Solo fell, he was crushed by the idea that he made the same mistakes as his masters. His only solution was to prevent the darkness from fully rising by sacrificing his connection to the force.In essence, his exile was to prevent the rise of the Dark Side again, as had happened with his masters. He recognized that his masters did nothing to cause the creation of Vader…….but the fact that they continued to exist in the light only strengthened his presence in the dark.Johnson wrote some great lines during that scene that emphasize this point. Luke states that it was the Jedi’s hubris that allowed Palpatine to rise under their noses without them even sensing that he was doing so. He sees there being no sense in embracing the light since it will only give rise to the dark.What he misses…..and this is where Johnson was particularly good with Luke’s story arc……is that Luke felt he could control the Force by shutting himself off from it. The Force, for its part, simply manifested itself strongly in someone else…..namely Rey. That is why Rey is so strong in the Force…..the Force chose her to balance out the rise of the dark, since Luke had closed himself off to being that person.…….. At least…..that’s what I think is going to happen.I could very well be wrong…….but I think the focus of the story more on the Force and less on the bloodline of the Skywalker family is where the story is heading next. The saga of the Skywalkers is just one small part of the bigger picture of how the Force manifested itself in the galaxy.For more fun Star Wars stuff, check out my blog : Cloud City Correspondence

How can God never be responsible for anything bad that happens in his creation?

Not sure from the tone of the question that this is worth the effort, but here's a quick answer:Your analogy is incomplete.  There's a reason Disney World gets parodied as Duloc, the "perfect" castle in the Shrek movies.  Disney World is for visiting, not living, and the control factor is racheted waaay up.  Remember the puppet show at the entrance to Duloc?  Does anybody actually want to live like that?  Call me an ogre, but I like my freedom, even if it has consequences.It's also a misconception that God never takes the blame for bad things that happen.    He certainly owned sending plagues on Egypt.  He admits to sending judgment on various cities.  He acquiesces to the trials of Job.  But are these things actually bad? That's a matter of perspective.Our sense of "bad" is based in a very temporal, earth-bound frame of reference.   In this framework, things that hurt us, upset us, or kill us are "bad".  In an eternal view, none of these things are inherently bad.  "Bad" applies to actions and beliefs that affect our eternal disposition, not our temporary situation. To give an analogy, it's like saying vaccines are bad because the shot hurts.  But in a slightly longer view, the outcome of the "bad" action (the painful shot) is worth it. Of course, none of this matters to anyone who doesn't buy into the concept of an eternal soul, God, heaven, or hell.  But if you want to "blame" God, it's a package deal.  You get the omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful, all-responsible God who sometimes sends/allows "bad" things.  But you also get a world view that says our life is much more than our short existence in these bodies, and that everything that happens (good or bad) is meant for our eternal benefit.There has been such an emphasis on "prosperity gospel" and material benefits that most people of faith have lost their sense of what "bad" really is.  When they lose their eternal perspective, they begin to spread the idea, "thank God for the good and blame others for the bad."  Few of them will ever say, as Job did, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return.  The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."**Job 1:21, English Standard Version

Should a man be responsible for a child if it was conceived through deception?Such as if a woman lies about being on birth control, sabotages a condom, or steals semen from a used condom? Why or why not?

Funnily, I worked through this thought experiment a few weeks ago. I am writing as a young someone who hasn't children yet, so my answer is relatively unbiased of parental experiences.Let's imagine the most extreme scenario where a woman conceives a child that is biologically mine but I had no fault.Maybe we didn't actually copulate.Maybe she inseminated herself with a used condom.Maybe she stole a sperm bank sample.Maybe we hadn't even met.Maybe, whatever choices I make, I won't face any repercussions on my reputation by friends/family because no one will ever know about it but she and I.And so in this situation I set aside all legalities and societal norms that could pollute my reasoning, and instead enter the realm of pure morality.The thing is, if there is a disparity between my regard for the child:conceived in a happy marriage, vs.in the current hypothetical situation,then I would be faulting the child for parameters outside their control. The wrongdoing of the mother (or father) does not necessitate the mistreatment of a child. So the answer becomes brilliantly clear:Take care of the child.The details may vary depending on socio-economic status but the premise is unwavering. I'd leave whatever life I had at the door, because I've been dealt a new hand and intend to see it through. That's how life works.Because children are so beautiful. And so many of them, already, don't have the chance for a stable life that any such opportunity to cultivate our succeeding generation should ideally be treasured.Because my perceived troubles are nothing, nothing, compared to the child's suffering if it has no competent parent figure in its upbringing.And that's all I have to say about that.

My husband thinks I should be responsible for waking him up on time. He's a grown man, should he not be responsible for himself?

I fear if something so insignificant is causing a rift in your marriage or personal happiness you're never going to make it. Yes, in all reality he is a grown man (assuming he is over the age of eighteen) and you are not going to be held prisoner if you don't assume responsibility for waking him up every morning. The problem arises when you ask yourself does this man you married irritate you so badly you can't even give him the courtesy of helping him wake up in the morning? I mean is it so unreasonable that the person you vowed to spend the rest of your life with actually need something from you? Come on now, do some self reflecting. Think about this. For goodness sakes, help the man get up in the morning if he has trouble doing so. You're supposed to love this spouse of yours.