An Omniscient God

[Dontaskme]

I am not sure how we got to non-duality. What facet of Christianity are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Non-dual nature of reality.

'Christianity' is a story, it's an appearance only.

The world of appearances come in many forms, and can only arise from a reality that is necessarily a 'Nondual Whole' and that the structure of these appearances manifest as entangled ontogenetic forms. The proof of which is self-evident within the basic raw material starting point that must have always existed in one form or another.

[Dontaskme]

Both the bible and science show that we basically have no free will. That or a severely limited free will.

Not even severely limited - the idea of 'free-will' implies a chooser. But if God is already Omniscient then the idea of choosing is a fiction within a story that's all.

[Dontaskme]

Well said Bob, but the son is quite happy at home already.

Yes, but my soul still doesn't want to die.

But you have no choice but to die, similarly you have no choice but to live.

This knowledge of opposites is within the dream of separation, the known dual reality is the only reality that can ever be known. This Non-dual nature is a duality.

[bobmax]

Well said Bob, but the son is quite happy at home already.

Yes, but my soul still doesn't want to die.

But you have no choice but to die, similarly you have no choice but to live.

This knowledge of opposites is within the dream of separation, the known dual reality is the only reality that can ever be known. This Non-dual nature is a duality.

But is it so important to know?

Isn't knowledge just a tool that must eventually be abandoned?

When I am filled with compassion it is no longer a question of knowing but of being.

[Dontaskme]

But is it so important to know?

Isn't knowledge just a tool that must eventually be abandoned?

When I am filled with compassion it is no longer a question of knowing but of being.

Yes I agree.

Compassion implys one who suffers, namely yourself, that you then extend to others as you know yourself.

[Iwannaplato]

It is in the Bible insofar as the meaning of the word itself is being ascribed to a deity known as God. It's does not have to appear as the 'word' in and of itself, but the idea of it is there for sure. The idea is implied very clearly.

It's not an idea that can be implied. It would have to be said. IOW it would need to say that God has the knowledge regardless of paradoxes. Free Will is implied also. Yes, one can interpret the Bible to mean that God knows everything, meaning the entire future. Or one can interpret to mean that God's knowledge so far beyond ours we use superlatives for it. The same with the other omni- traits. There is no reason to assume that a text that was often if not regularly expressive and poetic means that God is so powerful he can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

How would one talk about an entity that is so much more knowing.

The word Omnisicient is being ascribed to a Father by the offspring of the Father, as if the offspring is the voice of the Father.

The word omnicient is ascribed first in Latin by people with a quite different culture than the people who wrote the Bible. Maybe 1600s. At that point theologians were playing around with abstractions and logic in ways not used by the writers of the Bible.

But the idea of an ''All-Knowing'' deity called God would be totally incompatible with the idea of humans having free-will.

Yes, I understand your argument, that argument.

If God already knows every single thing before it happens then every human life form will be pre-designated. There cannot be human 'free-will' if every human life is playing out according to a script.

Does it say that in the Bible?

[Dontaskme]

Does it say that in the Bible?

The main point being made here is that a knowledge that can be said to be known is a knowledge that must have already existed else it wouldn't have been able to be thought about, therefore, knowledge must always be of past tense, it is scripted. A story implies a writer, and an author, therefore, it seems many writers and authors appear and are known only within the READING of the story.

Who or what reads? ...cannot be known without including that knowledge as a character within the story itself.

[Dontaskme]

There is no reason to assume that a text that was often if not regularly expressive and poetic means that God is so powerful he can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

Exactly, the idea of an ''Omniscient God'' can only be known as some fictional character within the ''Word'' itself.

Human story telling comes in many forms and categories, appearing as literature and art. To then characterise this ''Knowing'' as being an actual 'Person' or a 'God' ...is just more story telling, because characters have no more substance or reality to their existence than the character known as Bart Simpson does.

[bobmax]

Does it say that in the Bible?

The main point being made here is that a knowledge that can be said to be known is a knowledge that must have already existed else it wouldn't have been able to be thought about, therefore, knowledge must always be of past tense, it is scripted. A story implies a writer, and an author, therefore, it seems many writers and authors appear and are known only within the READING of the story.

Who or what reads? ...cannot be known without including that knowledge as a character within the story itself.

However, there is knowledge that does not need to have already existed.

It is what love knows.

Isn't it love that moves the sun and other stars?

[Dontaskme]

However, there is knowledge that does not need to have already existed.

It is what love knows.

Isn't it love that moves the sun and other stars?

What exists for saying and for thinking must be.
For it exists for it to be; but nothing does not exist.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no reason to assume that a text that was often if not regularly expressive and poetic means that God is so powerful he can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

Exactly, the idea of an ''Omniscient God'' can only be known as some fictional character within the ''Word'' itself.

Human story telling comes in many forms and categories, appearing as literature and art. To then characterise this ''Knowing'' as being an actual 'Person' or a 'God' ...is just more story telling, because characters have no more substance or reality to their existence than the character known as Bart Simpson does.

Then the focus on omniscient seems not useful.

[Belinda]

There is no reason to assume that a text that was often if not regularly expressive and poetic means that God is so powerful he can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

Exactly, the idea of an ''Omniscient God'' can only be known as some fictional character within the ''Word'' itself.

Human story telling comes in many forms and categories, appearing as literature and art. To then characterise this ''Knowing'' as being an actual 'Person' or a 'God' ...is just more story telling, because characters have no more substance or reality to their existence than the character known as Bart Simpson does.

Then the focus on omniscient seems not useful.

'Omniscience' is an epistemic not an ontological idea. However knowledge of God matters a great deal. It matters because it helps to orient us towards what our human condition is, and what it may become.

Omniscience is knowledge of absolute truth. Absolute good is impossible without absolute truth.

[Dontaskme]

There is no reason to assume that a text that was often if not regularly expressive and poetic means that God is so powerful he can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it.

Exactly, the idea of an ''Omniscient God'' can only be known as some fictional character within the ''Word'' itself.

Human story telling comes in many forms and categories, appearing as literature and art. To then characterise this ''Knowing'' as being an actual 'Person' or a 'God' ...is just more story telling, because characters have no more substance or reality to their existence than the character known as Bart Simpson does.

Then the focus on omniscient seems not useful.

It's not useful. However,Christians need it to be useful, so they can justify the unjust.

[bobmax]

However, there is knowledge that does not need to have already existed.

It is what love knows.

Isn't it love that moves the sun and other stars?

What exists for saying and for thinking must be.
For it exists for it to be; but nothing does not exist.

There is a fundamental difference between existing (being there) and being.

There is only what is something.
What is not something does not exist, it is nothing.

However, the Whole, for example, is not something, it just cannot be!

Therefore, albeit paradoxically, the Whole does not exist.

But even being is not something... Therefore Being does not exist, Being is!

[Dontaskme]

However, there is knowledge that does not need to have already existed.

It is what love knows.

Isn't it love that moves the sun and other stars?

What exists for saying and for thinking must be.
For it exists for it to be; but nothing does not exist.

There is a fundamental difference between existing (being there) and being.

There is only what is something.
What is not something does not exist, it is nothing.

However, the Whole, for example, is not something, it just cannot be!

Therefore, albeit paradoxically, the Whole does not exist.

But even being is not something... Therefore Being does not exist, Being is!

I totally agree.

Without being able to point to a thing, there is no way that we can ever say what it is or how it is different from anything else or even say that it is.