On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
See post #1060.
God knows men's hearts. But men don't know everything.
Abraham likely did not know if he was going to follow through with God's command to offer up Isaac right up until he reached out to grab the knife and took it.
God stopped him when he took the knife, because that was enough of a commitment to offering up his son for God to know Abraham's heart.
Thus, "NOW I know."
It means "now."
You're welcome to disagree, but then you'd be wrong.
| Strong's h6258 - Lexical: עַתָּה - Transliteration: attah - Part of Speech: Adverb - Phonetic Spelling: at-taw' - Definition: now. - Origin: From eth; at this time, whether adverb, conjunction or expletive. - Usage: henceforth, now, straightway, this time, whereas. - Translated as (count): now (217), therefore now (78), now therefore (35), But now (25), And therefore (19), so now (7), from this time forth (5), And now (4), And yet now (4), Therefore (4), by now (3), for now (3), from this time (3), And (2), And then (2), And whereas (2), from now on (2), Therefore at once (2), yet (2), and as soon as (1), And Even now (1), and yet (1), But now therefore (1), from that time forward (1), just now (1), now if (1), so (1), so therefore (1), than now (1), then (1), Then now (1). |
Lon
Well-known member
Not at all. Rather it seems God 'knew' Abraham would be there. 'Knew' that Isaac was going to be there. "Now"?
Banking vs knowing complicates. What did He know? To me? Everything. It's easy. Simple. A child can understand (forgive).
Rather, that it wasn't 'now.' If as you say, nothing is hidden, not even our thoughts, "Now" as an English translation is a difficult proposition. It is why we have concordances, the translators didn't want us slaves to English.
But not until the act is completed or near completed? These are your thoughts prior. It may exasperate, it is not my intention. I'm asking for clarifications here.
I agree but for "God to know" or "Abraham to know?" How does it jive with knowing his thoughts 'before now?' Honest question despite how pedantic. It needs to be pedantic else I wouldn't ask.
"...so that He could know that Abraham...(was)...after...(His)...heart. I don't see it this way, but when I 'try' to climb into your thoughts, this doesn't make sense. You've just said God already knows? At the moment, it doesn't add up.
If it made sense. It presently does not and sorry for the frustration such might cause. Some people don't like kids asking why all the time. I have to our I'll never understand why anybody would become Open Theist when it seems, at least, to not make sense when I walk away from Genesis 22.
In my scriptural understanding, He never counts, but sustains. The 'counting' would just be 'recollection' or like. I'm trying to find out how an Open Theist thinks God keeps the number. He literally would have to count over and over and over from afar? I'd imagine some Open Theists would say the verse is a figure of speech. For me, I can't. The Lord Jesus had just talked about sparrows and asserted firmly in my mind that of the billion, not one falls without God knowing it. Such implies an intimacy near enough to omnipresence for you, and for me.
Colossians 1 sets Him as sustainer (presently) of all that exists. The greek word συνεστηκεν (perfect, active, indicative) Consists/Holds-together; indicate that God doesn't do the inane, but actively even the mundane. For me the question: Why does God know something as seemingly trivial as how many hairs I have today and how many I've lost? Incidental to sustaining would be a good guess and is a scriptural given. Because sustaining (active indicative) is ongoing, it necessarily means omnipresence. Granted not all believe Colossians 1:17 means what I believe it does, but it seems clear from the text and a bit of concordance work. I can read Greek, need helps similar to the rest of you. I have to keep fresh word endings but can roughly translate, and over longer period of time could translate every Greek verse. You can too, using concordances, word studies and morphological books, but I recognize a good number of Greek words and it helps.
Last edited:
Not at all. Rather it seems God 'knew' Abraham would be there. 'Knew' that Isaac was going to be there. "Now"?
Your wife knows you're going to be at work tomorrow, does she not?
And again, it's not like Abraham was being dragged there kicking and screaming, for three days straight!
This is why you have a hard time.
Don't assume "everything." Doing so is eisegesis.
God can't know someone's thought if the thought never exists.
God cannot know what Abraham will do before he starts the chain of thought-command in his brain to reach out and pick up the knife.
But the VERY MOMENT he does, God knows!
Thus, "NOW I know."
Supra. I literally just got done saying God knows our thoughts before we put them into words. (or actions, such as typing out the thoughts or putting thought into action.
The text does not say nor indicate that God knew that Abraham would, in fact, sacrifice his only son on the altar, UNTIL the EXACT MOMENT Abraham reached out and took the knife.
I submit that God knew the moment Abraham committed to reaching out, but writing doesn't quite permit simultaneous actions to be described except in sequence.
Knows what?
God knows some things, and not others. And He can make predictions based on what He knows, and plan for it, and He even makes contingencies for when those predictions fail. That doesn't describe a God that "knows everything". That describes a living God, one who goes through time like the rest of us, interacting and forming relationships.
Why is that so hard to comprehend? Unless you're still assuming "God knows everything"? If so, drop the "God knows everything" assumption, and the problem goes away.
It does make sense. Or are you asserting scripture doesn't make sense?
Because all I'm doing is describing what the Bible says...
Lon
Well-known member
Spoiler
You weren't probably reading my exchange with Clete. Strong's is good albeit an abbreviated version of Brown,Driver,Briggs, Strong's generally/mostly for casual bible readers. Pastor's do go to it first among their works, but usually when words get this attention, they begin breaking into their library shelves for the i-ndepth study and etymology. When I began Greek (BDB is Hebrew, I had to have it for that class too) class, we had to buy BDB (now available for free online among other very good Greek and Hebrew helps). See
| H6258 | עַתָּה | ʿatâ | now, whereas, henceforth, this time forth, straightway |
I read it.
That's nice, but completely irrelevant. A casual Bible reading is enough to glean the meaning from the Bible.
You don't need to be a studied professor of Hebrew or Greek to know what the Bible says at face value.
It's easy enough for a child to understand.
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove here.
None of this goes against anything I said.
The point was that God, prior to Abraham reaching out and grabbing the knife, did not know whether Abraham would not withhold his only son, and that, "henceforth," "this time forth," "whereas" Abraham had not, and "now" he did pick it up, NOW God knows.
Thanks for proving my position and falsifying yours.
Lon
Well-known member
Definitely, approximately, reliably? Out the gate I'd say 'no.' She may think she knows, but this is ancillary knowledge. Know is a misnomer but rather 'expectation' than actually knowing. They only way she can know is if she comes and checks and such is within the scope of what we are asserting about God so good question.
Right, so 'now' is, as I said, problematic, even if I were Open Theist. I'd examine it the same exact way.
Of course! I was giving you my shoes for a moment, after a similar fashion. Right now I'm trying on a pair of "Open" toed shoes. Not really my style, but a few people I know wear them. I live in rainy weather so it is a chore (hope analogy works).
Of course not. In this, Open Logic follows but then we'd disagree on 'what' precisely is knowable. Rather, we tend to use 'non'omniscience to qualify omniscience when we try to qualify it. Does God know (blank) does not exist? Surely. When you say 'pink unicorn' did you make up something God wasn't aware of? At that venture I'd say 'no.' "Pink" and "unicorn" are in the dictionary. Even you know what it is if someone comes along and says "Black Bogey!" Doesn't exist, but we know what it is. When we say God is good, there is an idea of saying what it is not (sin/wicked) but we are still left not describing good other than what it is not. I do not have a problem with saying "God does not know what I have never thought" but likely He does, if it exists or is capable of existing.
Why? What keeps it from happening?
▲Reconcile these two seeming opposite ideas for me?
I've put a knife to my stomach at age 8 ready to see Jesus. I stopped because it hurt. I had every intention of plunging and cowardly dropped the knife (I told God I was a coward bawling my little eyes out). Life was very hard then. There was no ram in the thicket, no angel to stop me. I cannot fathom God didn't know my heart. My obedience? I'd think knowing me as well as He does, He knew what was to happen all along the way.
Agree and yet another reason to ask questions of translation.
How do you know that? Isn't it reasoning, hypothesis, speculation?
For me? Too trite. Too quick at early dismissal. I don't want to settle. I want to know what is true. At present, I believe God sustains the universe. Because of it, every draw of power, every act of thought may not be deterministic, but certainly known. It is a power-draw (for lack of a better term). Jesus immediately ask "Who touched me?" In His human form, perhaps he didn't know, but the Father would have, easily. "Who touched me" does not necessitate that He was looking for an answer, but a response from the one He knew did touch Him (similar to Adam where are you?)
No, I'm asserting translation doesn't, right?
I agree and doing a fine job, but I'm asking questions yet. My study isn't over. If it were, we'd just ignore each other and walk away.
I'm asking "How is it, God, that only 'Now' you knew? Do you know hearts? Was Abraham struggling to the very end? If so, it'd still be You knew even the dilemma in his heart. How then is it that 'now' and only 'now' you knew? "How did you 'know' that Abraham would actually plunge the knife then? What if he stopped mid-stride? How did You actually know? Or didn't You?
VladtheDestroyer
Member
Open Theism aside; You, I and all of us will have different ways of thinking about God. And there is not necessarily anything wrong with that. I am sure that, as Christians, God instills in us certain truths about Him. After all, our relationship with Him is a 2 way street. And His way is going to be true and correct and our way will always be the way of a child learning from his father.
It is difficult for all of us, to convey with words or even with our thoughts, how awesome He is and how eternally grateful we should be for what Jesus did for us.
It's difficult to comprehend spiritual things. Of course!
But some take these difficulties and put extra difficulties in front of them. Then they call other Christians blasphemers and heretics for not doing the same, and effectively set themselves up as gatekeepers to scriptural and spiritual understanding.
All the Open Theists are saying is "Don't do that!"
That's what Calvinism is. It's gatekeeping. You don't have to understand infinity to be able to pray to God or have a relationship with Him. Give me a break! That's not in the Bible. Nor is that a truth God instilled in us when we began our relationship with Him.
Because if the Omni's and the Infinities were a requirement for a relationship with God through Jesus our Saviour, THEN WE WOULD ALL HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING!
So no. Calvinism is not "ok". Because it insists that everyone who chooses not too place added difficulties in front of a relationship with Jesus is a heretic. And we ARE NOT. But if Calvinism is true, then we are, because Calvinists would then be the gatekeepers to the pathway to Jesus! But there are no gatekeepers. Christianity is not an institution!!
Look at people like James White or Matt Slick. Do they love the Lord? Of course they do! These guys are warriors for Jesus Christ! But that does not change the fact that the standard they are using to judge me as a heretic is a Calvinist standard. Not a biblical one. Calvinism is what does that. Not Jesus. It's time for it to end.
Last edited:
I do not debate rationalizations.Of course, yet we all do it. All of us. We are trying to take our ideas make them work. The only difference between rational and rationalizing is what we choose to ignore. Until then, we all rationalize because we have working paradigms. When those are sufficiently challenged, we rework our beliefs and allow them to follow. I simply used your word and embraced it. I rationalize and then reason.
Indictment is a rabbit trail.
Yeah they do. You aren't without it. If we see it in ourselves, that is a good thing. I rationalize. You rationalize. We entrench. Is it bad if we all do it? Depends if we see it in ourselves and know the remedy. I've been here 25 years on TOL. I think I've got a handle on it. I truly look to anything new to challenge. I rationalize less.
"Seems" like rationalizing to me. It doesn't jive with your theology of course.
I'm not a slave to English translations. Reactionary on your part? Of course. I have no problem questioning translations. My professors were the very men that translated one of the most used English bibles on the planet. They taught me to not trust. Why? Because the ones who hired them also employed English teachers who reworked the texts. Granted they were resubmitted back to the Hebrew Greek scholars (at times).
Not helpful, even to/for you. It certainly means nothing to me.
You are defending 'my' position on point. I'm trying to see it 'from' and Open perspective, remember? I'm the one who sees a ram already trapped in the bushes. It truly renders 'now' as translation error as one and likely the culprit.
It is good you see this passage isn't about God, as much as Abraham. "Now I know" would be taken not as literal, but rather that the devotion act had to be carried through. There was already a ram in the thicket. So did God know? Of course. "Now?" If God can read minds (and He can), then acts are simply follow-through for what is there. Abraham was conflicted but following through with every action and intent.
It makes problematic sense and "now" English.
Read Hebrew? No it does not.
Seeing it in ourselves is a good step in the right direction. I posit we all do it. The first step in change is to see the need.
Luke 12:7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Agree! My scripturally driven belief: Colossians 1:16-20 Acts 17:28 It is because He actively sustains them.
Remember there are 8 billion people in the world. As you say, that is in all practicality an omnipresent definition but if He currently sustains everything, all created for Him, the connections would be omnipresent as necessity (or as you say, very nearly).
Okay, but this analogy does not account that you and I lose approximately 100 - 200 hairs every day so analogy cannot accurately dismiss.
It does when it is fact the number is not the same one moment to the next. I'd imagine most go in the drain after a shower, another few when we rub our heads and another few when a good wind hits us.
Is it an error? It appears that way, even with the broom analogy.
I look forward to that day.
Those tend to be emotional concerns. Emotions are good like dashlights on a car, but I quickly move beyond them to try to make sense of what God does and 'why.' For me, the wheat/tares analogy is very near akin to answering all problematics: "Don't touch them lest even one of my wheat is harmed!" Such allows either Open Theism or the rest of us to peer into the heart of God and see His concerns.
Yep.
On this, I am duly challenged. I appreciate that I do not take terms to Greeks nor even often enough further than etymology. Panentheism is certainly problematic. I have no problem with you expounding the further meaning. Panentheism, in a dictionary is nowhere near as problematic as in philosophy and religious connotations. This is probably the largest issue of frustration between us, but I want to say again 1) thank you for correction when such applies and 2) the need for Godly longsuffering, patience, and grace. I appreciate you putting up with me and the frustration thereof.
Not if we agree. It means (as with just above), much of our disagreement is just over what to call something. We are apart, true enough. How far apart seems less every day I talk to you. We will continue to argue over definition on point.
Remember this, however, for future consideration: I believe scripture says the universe is sustained by Him. There would be, in my understanding, no need to count, ever. It has a definite omnipresent sense.
"Gibberish." Yet you followed it all. Further, in order for you to state that you've thought of these things, you'd have to concede you also have entertain 'gibberish' in your own mind else you haven't entertained the arguments. That my friend, would be rationalization. Best to hold off value statements most often. I rarely tell somebody their ideas or gibberish. Your broom analogy is problematic as it doesn't coincide with hairs. Gibberish would be unkind and untrue. It was a good thought. Aren't you better for me simply telling you where it doesn't cross-over than to tell you it was stupid (it was not, just not thought through far enough).
LOL! I didn't come up with the broom analogy.
"Gibberish" is rationalizing, doing this very thing. None of us are completely logical. We aim for it and seek scriptures to be more logical. This very thread is exactly that else none of us would be here. We test our ideas and see if they stand and when we find ideas from scripture that truly work, we share them that we might return the favor to another. We are seeking to understand God and Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. It intimates taking care of one's instructor, but it also has context for sharing what we learn.
You've heard 'three fingers pointing back.' In psychology, it is a truism of observation that when name-calls in frustration, they are revealing the limits of their patience, not able to address the issue, etc. In teaching, we are instructed to draw out the student when they make an unclear statement to 1) help them learn to explain themselves and 2) to practice patience and foster a teachable moment. You have a good mind Clete, but you often portray yourself the quintessential logician over and against any contenders. I wasn't born with a silverspoon. I have to work for all things academic. I've done well, but had poor grades as I had to work 5 hours every day to make ends meet in college. Then there was this girl. By my senior year, I'd saved enough to not have to work and graduated at least that year with a 4.0. In Master's college I earned a 3.87. Why all this? I want you to know me when we interact. It may allow for less frustration if you know more where I come from. I'm not exactly an academic. I have to work harder than the rest of you. That must necessarily require patience and longsuffering. I'm sorry, but thank you just the same. In Him -Lon
Lon, you're seriously overthinking this! I'm glad you think it was a good question, but you're overthinking it! It's an excellent point that I didn't even think of, that even further blows your position out of the water, but it wasn't what I was getting at.
When I asked you, "Does your wife know that you will be at work tomorrow," you instantly understood exactly what I meant! Your answer should have been a resounding YES, despite your wife being a fallible human being like everyone else.
To the best of her ability, she knows that you will go to work tomorrow! She doesn't need to have omniscience to know that. She can make a reasonable assumption and know for a fact that, based on the current circumstances, you will, in fact, go to work tomorrow.
But somehow, when the Bible records God as saying, "Now I know that you fear God," all of a sudden it must mean something different, why? Because God must be omniscient! He must have all knowledge about everything and everyone in all places all at once!
He can't know now (from that moment onwards), based on the current set of circumstances, that Abraham fears God?
He had to know it beforehand, and "Now I know" must not mean exactly what it says?
Why couldn't God know that Abraham would be going to sacrifice his only son Isaac in the same way your wife can know that you will be at work tomorrow, while simultaneously not know that Abraham feared God? Why is that not possible? Why must God know it beforehand, when it makes the phrase "Now I know" superfluous?
Why is it problematic?
Abraham had followed God's commands before, starting in Genesis 12, and continuing up for however many years until chapter 22, and beyond.
But not one of the things God asked him to do even compares to offering up one's only begotten son on an altar!
God could say that Abraham honored God, but He couldn't say that Abraham honored God to the point of even offering up his only son, as God was planning to do!
And as I mentioned previously, it's likely even Abraham wasn't sure about it! How could God know something about Abraham capability that Abraham himself wasn't even sure of‽
If the only way you can answer that is that "God is omniscient," then you have completely missed the point of the entire Bible up to that point, and probably beyond!
The answer is that He could not, and you even agreed with me that God cannot know someone's thought if that thought never exists!
Could you imagine God asking you to take a three day journey where once you arrive at your destination, you are commanded to offer up your child as a burnt offering? Could you imagine what must have been going through Abraham's mind the entire trip? How it would have pained him to answer his son's question, "Where is the lamb for a burnt offering," knowing that in a few moments, he would have to tie up his son, and offer him up as the very burnt offering?
I'd be questioning myself the ENTIRE WAY! Could I follow through with God's command? Do I really trust God, who promised to make me the father of many nations, to work out how He will do so after commanding me to kill my only son?
And at some point, putting his faith in God that He'll work it out somehow, and reaching out to take the knife to kill his son‽
I don't think anyone could know whether they would be able to have that sort of trust in God until they were actually put in that situation!
Which is entirely the point!
Had Abraham failed and said, "I can't do it, God, I can't offer up my son to you," the rest of Abraham's life would likely have been a lot different! But the fact remains that God would have known, for sure, at the very moment Abraham made up his mind either way, "Now I know. Here in the thicket is the ram for you to use as the burnt offering in place of your son."
None of this requires omniscience. It simply requires God having a ram caught in a thicket, and for God to command someone who has at least so far been loyal to Him to go and do something, and to watch him do it.
God is LIVING, He is capable of responding to the actions of His creation.
Presentism is the answer.
The future does not exist.
The past does not exist anymore.
Only the present exists. God cannot know the future because it does not exist.
God can make really good predictions, far better than any man ever could, based on the current circumstances, but because circumstances can and do change, God's predictions do not always come to pass.
In the case of Genesis 22, God predicted with a relatively high degree of certainty that 1) Abraham would journey three days to Mount Moriah, 2) Abraham would ascend the mountain with his son Isaac, and 3) that Abraham would build an altar for a burnt offering. None of these things God knew because He somewhow knew the future, but because He knew ABRAHAM! He had formed a relationship with Abraham over the past 40-odd years! Do you think He got to know Abraham at least a little bit, to know what he is like and how he will respond to things?
Because the future doesn't exist!
God cannot know what does not exist!
There does not exist a married bachelor, or a triangle with four sides. The boogie man does not exist, therefore God cannot know how many hairs are on his head.
What keeps what from happening? You lost me...
Are you talking about what keeps God from knowing what exactly will happen in the future? It's because it hasn't happened yet! God can't know something that hasn't happened!
What is there to reconcile? Why do you assume they are opposite? They're two sides of the same coin, so to speak.
God cannot know something that doesn't exist.
But the moment a thought is had, God can know it.
And at the point it happens, God can say "Now I know" that thought, because that thought has occurred. And if it's a thought that someone is going to put into speech, as Scripture says, God knows it before it's on their tongue (Psalm 139:4).
I'm not sure if you're trying to compare your angst to Abraham's struggle, but I sure hope not. Either way...
The difference is that you didn't have the conviction to follow through, no matter how painful (in your case, thankfully).
Conviction is what God was looking for. "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
Abraham had the conviction to follow through. At the point of conviction in his heart, God stopped him.
Knowing what you are currently going through is present knowledge, Lon.
Not future knowledge.
Being able to predict what you will do is not the same as knowing what you will do, and He cannot know what you will do until you actually commit to doing it and then do it!
Your circumstances are not an argument for omniscience.
Because the Bible says so!
There are entire categories of verses in the Bible that show, unequivocally, that God does not know some things, even that the future is uncertain or not settled!
Open Theism Bible Verses in 33 Categories | Open Theism
What is there to settle on, other than whether it is true or false that God goes through time like the rest of us, interacting and forming relationships?
Especially when the bible is clear that God does not know everything?
Have you considered that maybe it's not a matter of it being "too trite" or "too quick at early dismissal," but that you're just too stubborn to let go of a belief that you have been shown is false?
I don't think you have. Or if you have, you're in denial about it being false.
Or, the simpler solution is that Jesus did not know who touched Him, because he was in the middle of a crowd, and thus asked the question. You know, just like the Bible says...
And you've been shown to be wrong on this.
The translation makes perfect sense, and is consistent with the Hebrew. At this point, you're going against Scripture itself. That should, repeat, SHOULD, give you pause.
The simple answer is because He did not know it before, but NOW he knows, at the moment Abraham committed to picking up the knife to offer up his son.
Supra.
But He didn't know the outcome.
If he knew the outcome, then why the test?
Because God cannot know that which does not exist. The future does not exist. Abraham had not yet made the decision. God cannot know decisions that have not been made. But once they have been made, God can know, AT THE MOMENT THEY ARE MADE!
This really isn't that hard to understand, Lon!
Because God knows the hearts of men.
Especially Abraham's heart... Abraham, a man he had gotten to know over the past 40 years or so. Abraham had committed to offering up Isaac in His heart.
God wasn't looking for Abraham to start swinging his arm down. He was looking for the commitment within Abraham's heart.
God did not want Abraham to kill his only son.
God wanted to see if Abraham feared God more than he feared losing his son.
He didn't need Abraham to even come close to raising his hand against his son. It wasn't necessary to know whether Abraham would raise his hand with the knife in it.
It was only necessary for Abraham to demonstrate his fear of God.
In other words, He didn't know that Abraham would stop. He didn't know that Abraham would follow through.
It never got to that point in the first place!
Read the text!
It never says Abraham had raised his hand with the knife in it!
It says God stopped him the moment he stretched out his hand and took the knife!
That is the key question!
The only reason I can think of for why it's problematic for Lon is that it completely destroys the notion that God is "omniscient," because it shows that God learns! (Which in fact is one of the categories of verses on https://opentheism.org/verses!)
That's a HUGE problem for his position. But in reality, it's not a huge problem at all. The problem only exists within his paradigm of beliefs.
Once you eliminate the a priori belief that God is omniscient, the problem goes away entirely, and the story comes to life in a way it never could otherwise!
VladtheDestroyer
Member
It's so obvious. I just can't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
As I mentioned before, and as @Clete has pointed out for a long time on TOL, belief paradigms can blind you to what should be obvious.
If you have such a rigid view of the world, that it does not allow you to view things from a different perspective, a different paradigm, then you will never be able to consider anything other than you you believe, to be true, regardless of how many flaws there are with your beliefs.
You'll appeal to mystery (which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least on certain matters) when an alternate explanation is possible, simply because you refuse to consider the alternative.
I made a post in the last year or so regarding this, and in it I posted a video of an art installation of a jumble of assorted objects hanging from the ceiling..... Until you walk around it to stand in a certain location, at which point a face appears out of the mess!
Paradigms are like these kinds of art installations. If you refuse to move from your initial position, you'll never be able to see the face. It will always appear to be a jumbled mess of objects that have no special connection to each other, and you'll think "well this was pointless!"
But if you simply adjust where you're standing, shift your paradigm of beliefs, all of a sudden, things start moving, parts shift towards and away from each other, you start to comprehend that there's more to the sculpture that you're looking at, and then, you finally see the face, and as you reach the proper perspective, things continue to just fall into place within the image!
Most people won't ever experience this sort of paradigm shift! They're too stubborn!
But for those who do, it's as though they've taken off a blindfold!
It's amazing to me how much you and I are on the same wavelength! I had a portion of a post about paradigm shifts written before I noticed this post and then I just deleted it because it was just making the exact same point.
Those sculptures that only work from a particular direction are a beautiful analogy. It's like all the pieces are there and are visible but the whole doesn't coalesce into anything that makes sense until seen from just the right place and then you can't not see it.
I was going to make a similar illustration with an optical illusion that I've always thought made the point really well. Can you see the circles in the following image...
They're there! There's 16 of them! Once you see them, you can't not see them!
Certain paradigm shifts are among the most important things that can happen to people!
I would say in response to the point you make about most people being too stubborn to experience such a paradigm shift that you're right, of course, there are many who are too stubborn, but what really makes paradigm shifts tuff humps to get over has to do with two major issues...
1. Biology: Our brains are wired up to reject paradigm shifts. It goes against every natural instinct we have.
2. Entrenchment: Paradigms shifts can be very expensive things, especially when it comes religious issue, people have often spent their entire lives believing what they believe. Many have spent tens of thousands of dollars and several years being trained in their particular theological field of study and may have dozens of personal relationships, including friends family and professional colleagues and a whole career (i.e. their entire life) built around a particular theological paradigm and a major shift would send that whole thing crumbling into dust. For many, it's just too big a price to pay. Which is, at the very least, understandable.
Last edited:
VladtheDestroyer
Member
This is such a great point that others are also beginning to raise. Why are Christian colleges charging people $40,000 to study the Bible when they can study it themselves for free at home?
We don't need institutions. We are doing it all wrong. There are over 2 billion people in this world who claim Jesus as their savior. We need a network. Paul didn't build an institution. He built a network. That's why he was traveling all the time. It's time to end all institutions and build this network again.
Last edited:
High price because the government is involved.
And because some people need teachers. And having a teacher helps to avoid one's own bias.
And because of that, people have the right to charge for their time teaching.
VladtheDestroyer
Member
God is more powerful than the government.
No one has the right to charge people to teach them God's word. God's word is strong enough so that those who teach it will be sustained. The Holy Spirit will move people to sustain it. Paul and the early Christians were not sustained by miracles. They were sustained by the charity inspired by teaching God's word. Nothing has changed since then.
How do you think the people who teach the Bible in places like China or countries in Africa are sustained? Where Christians can be slaughtered and imprisoned by default. If anything, we should be paying $40,000 to learn the Bible from them. Not from people who are guaranteed to live comfortably in their modern homes in Arizona for the rest of their lives. Bob Enyart never "charged" people for any of his material! He always made it clear that if you didn't have the money, he would just send it to you for what ever you could give. He wasn't a great business man! He was a great teacher of the Bible! And he did not want to build an institution! He was against that! He taught that institutions will become increasingly wicked over time!