I have harped-on about the problem of regarding God's omniscience as necessary and definitive, and what malign effects this assumption has for Christians.
I was thinking more on this matter, when it struck me with forcible conviction that omniscience is part of an assumption that reality is ultimately "static" - by which I mean that if God is to know everything (past, present, future), then divine creation must be completed and unchanging in an ultimate sense.
The omniscience of God is a really bad idea for Christians - if not for strict monotheists such as Jews and Muslims; and insofar as omniscience is taken seriously and rigorously; it pushes Christianity (both in its deep theory and in societal practice) towards a pure monotheism by which freedom/agency, and creation/ development are foreknown and bounded.
Indeed, it seems logically to collapse towards a Hinduism or Buddhism that regards this experienced world of change, time, apparent freedom, apparent creation - as maya, illusion; not really-real.
And this world of illusion is very difficult to square with faith in a God that is Good and loving to us each as persons.
Why would such a God, that is omniscient, create a fake-world inhabited with deluded creatures?
The omniscience of God is a really bad idea for Christians -- incoherence of theology is always a bad thing, especially when that incoherence is so up-front and obvious, yet denied and obfuscated by incomprehensible/nonsensical abstractions.
Omniscience isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, quite the reverse! And is starkly contradicted by the eye-witness narrative and teachings of Fourth Gospel, and most of the other reported Biblical accounts of Jesus.
It makes me wonder what Good reasons (there are plenty of bad ones) could exist why so many orthodox Christian intellectuals, for so many centuries, have absolutely insisted-upon such a monstrous doctrine - such a gratuitous stumbling block to faith in Jesus Christ?
1 comment:
"Omniscience isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, quite the reverse! And is starkly contradicted by the eye-witness narrative and teachings of Fourth Gospel, and most of the other reported Biblical accounts of Jesus."
Although none of the behavior in the book implies omnipotence, the word "almighty" is used in many translations. I think this causes many to believe in omnipotence, but I also suspect that translators chose that word because they believed in it.
I disagree with the choice of word. A better choice would be "all-ruler".
God almighty is used where the Hebrew "El Shaddai" was, and where the Greek "pantocrator" was.
The meaning of "Shaddai" is disputed and uncertain, but the meaning of "pantocrator" is not.
Pan- means all, and crator means ruler: All-ruler.
To be fair, kratos means might, and crator is related to that word, as in "power exerter", because rulers have power over their subjects, but the word crator was used to mean ruler, both before the bible was translated like in the word "autokrator" (self-ruler) and after it was translated, like in "sebastocrator" (venerable ruler).
Even though the creator god was considered to rule not only over humans as subjects, but over nature itself as well, I still think even with this meaning, that all-ruler is better, especially considering that he doesn't act like he's almighty in the writings.
I am not Christian, I haven't finished the whole book yet, and I'm not a historian, but can you honestly say that omnipotence makes sense and is is implied when you read the bible?
Post a Comment