(Part two) “Omnipotence” and “Omniscience”–God possesses neither: Another failure of Reformed determinism

Why do we assume that God must know everything and do everything in order to be God?

Think beyond the canned responses of our severely conditioned (read: diligently propagandized and brainwashed) fellow Christians…responses that are really non-answers, meant to curtail humanity’s natural tendency to organize the world into reconcilable assumptions.  Meant to curtain man’s reason.   The very thing upon which man’s life utterly depends.

Let’s look at the idea of the conditioned, orthodox Christian.

Why it is that Christians for the most part are only willing to take their thoughts so far?   It seems as though they are outright fucking terrified to think through their doctrinal conclusions because I contend they realize that ultimately the doctrine implodes under the weight of its own contradictions. Thus, they ALWAYS revert back to the standard playbook of orthodoxy, no matter how often the horror of that particular belief system smacks them in the face with its cold, dead hands.  If the discernment blogs have taught us anything, it is that Christians can be abused to the point of physical and psychological damage, sometimes destroying the entire scope of their lives, and yet will recoil in rage and panic and hysterics at anyone who dares to question their traditional understanding of God and His church.

This is the conditioned Christian.  This is the Christian who has been afflicted with doctrinal Stockholm Syndrome.  The spirit is destroyed, and yet the obligatory answers and slavish devotion to the tyranny of their gnostic ideas remain.  They are satisfied that the very perfunctory doctrinal posits which have ruined their lives are sufficient for bringing peace to them; for healing and soothing, as though ideas which are purposefully designed to destroy and nothing else, are equally efficacious for life and happiness.

But this is what they have been taught…this is all they know.  And, like a dog to his vomit, it is to this they will return.  Because, unless you  make it a point to specifically address doctrine; to specifically reject the canned answers from the the “orthodox” feed bag which hasn’t been filled with anything new for literally thousands and thousands of years, then you are doomed to walk right back into the same meat grinder which just spit you out like so much psychological sausage.

Exhibit A of this trend, this revolving door of Reformed orthodoxy, is the discernment blog, http://www.wartburgwatch.com. Here you will see first hand the abused storm out of the edifice of “sound doctrine”, do a little dance, throw a little tantrum, call CJ Mahaney a bunch of appropriately pejorative names, spit on the side walk and then…brush themselves off, straighten their ties and corsets, and walk right back inside, full of stoic resolve, where Wade Burleson and his wonderful hair are holding the door open for you.

The catalyst for this irrational behavior is the refusal to question the doctrine.  Why?  Because the doctrine is not based on reason, you see…for that is precisely how they define “God-breathed” and “inspired”.  These terms mean, specifically: NOT according to man’s epistemological capacity…meaning that what YOU think is true is irrelevant (i.e. NOT true, by definition).  They mean that you never really get to say whether you concede their–that is, the Priests in the Stead–interpretive premises or not.  Your existence doesn’t matter, because you are wholly inadequate to understand what is ultimately the product of an omnipotent Being who transcends everything about you; because He is infinite and you are finite, and there is no way to logically, ever, reconcile these two metaphysical positions.  What is INFINITE can ultimately, and again by utter definition, have nothing whatsoever to do in any actual way with what is finite.  That’s pure logic…Reason 101 stuff.  How do you reconcile that which is endless to anything else? You don’t…because you can’t.  Because any coupling of infinity with anything else automatically contradicts infinity.  If it isn’t everything, then it isn’t infinite.  And that’s why God is not “omnipotent”.

I will get to that point in more depth in a moment.

The philosophy of their thinking, and all their interpretive premises, and all of the roots of their “sound doctrine” have nothing to do with you YOU insofar as you ability or outright need, for the sake of rank survival, to rationally organize and integrate what your senses absorb.  Ultimately, all “real” truth is wholly revealed by God, completely outside of man’s existential or epistemological essence.  In short, man has nothing to do with truth, so what you think or feel or understand or notice is entirely irrelevant.  Your comprehension of things which define your SELF and your environment and your life are categorically usurped on every level, right down to your very essence and existence, by a God who can do and know everything.

Hmm…

I’m starting so see why “omnipotence” and “omniscient” are such useful tools in the belt and harness of the spiritual despot.

And this leads us to another absolutely necessary tool of the successful tyrant:  Propaganda in the form of a systematic theology.  Present a codified, cohesive framework from which to address all of the concerns of the critics and detractors.  The answers do not have to be rational, they just have to smartly appeal to a source of “intelligence”–a source of “revealed knowledge”–that transcends the mind, on the metaphysical level, of the inquisitor.  That is the key.  Present a systematic philosophy which has the ring of intellectual fortitude and then root it ALL in the appeal to divine “wisdom”.  This satisfies even the most analytical among us.  The rigorous philosophical system allows the tyrant to appease the learned concerns of the more intellectual classes…assuaging fears by assuring people that their concerns have been thoroughly vetted by and integrated into the construct.  For the concerns the construct cannot address, because the logical conclusions are ALWAYS contradictory (and the “authority” knows this if they are worth their salt as respectable tyrants) it claims divine mandate of “truth” as its bulwark.  The discerning citizen is thus comforted by the nod to the intellectual cohesiveness the philosophy presents, and is further and most importantly comforted by the fact that it–as the propagandists will readily and willingly concede–doesn’t have all the answers.  And why do they take comfort in this?  Because it appeals to their inherent sense of superiority, I submit.  It appeals to their insatiable desire to have and lord TRUTH over everyone else…to prove that they indeed have been grafted into the divine wisdom; which is, after all, that which gives credence to the sum and substance to their own assumed intellectual pedestal.   I mean, what good would a “perfect” and “perfectly revealed” philosophy of God be if it had all the answers? Surely there must be some mystery involved.  We serve the Almighty, after all, they say.  We can’t expect to understand everything, right?  God has to reserve some things for Himself…things the “finite” human being isn’t capable of understanding.  And this intricate, beautifully organized and constructed and comprehensive systematic theology is just what the doctor ordered.  A perfect philosophy that leaves the logical conclusions open-ended, allowing for God’s infinite capability to both DO and KNOW everything. 

This naturally gives the mystics a get-out-of-culpability-for-abuse free card.  They can preach their destruction and compel by force and violence, blackmail and intimidation their Will to Power disguised as “spirituality”, and then when the shit hits the fan and some disgruntled and “prideful” layperson refuses to be placated any longer by the usual appeals to the “good of the church/state/collective/tribe/monarchy/race/party”, or “God’s will”, or “I was not given the grace to perceive” (thanks, CJ!) because it was his or her daughter that the seventeen-year-old psychopath repeatedly raped in the church bathroom, the spiritual “authorities” can always be absolved by punting the entire fucking systematic philosophy into the great cosmic abyss of God’s mystery.  Obviously God is in control.  Obviously He knows things we don’t know.  Does things we can’t do.  Of course our understanding of the world MUST recede under the mighty corpulence of God’s omniscience and omnipotence.  You must simply trust that only God can really understand, guided in “sound doctrine” (the very doctrine which spawned the abuse) by the skillful hands of His priests…who are the keepers of all of God’s divine mandates.

Think of the power this gives the priests!  They are NEVER accountable for any behavior; for anything they perpetrate upon or demand of the masses over which God proclaims them stewards.  Their systematic theology allows them an almost invincible two-pronged defense, depending on the situation.  They can either appeal to their own fallen, depraved humanity…the “we are all just sinners saved by Grace/but for the grace of God go I” defense; or the “I am the keeper of the keys/God has tasked me with standing in His stead to be God to you” offense.  Truly, it is almost a thing of beauty.

*

Okay, fine.  We understand the usefulness to tyranny of “omniscience” and “omnipotence”, but WHY?  What are the root assumptions which underlie the notions?  What is it about God…what is it about His metaphysical nature, His rote existential being, which drives the belief that He does everything (or “can do” anything, which is the same thing; for you cannot proclaim this without a frame of reference, which is that God, somehow, actually DOES everything), and knows everything?  Hence, my original question:  Why do we assume that if God is to be God, He must be omnipotent and omniscient.

First, we must understand that these two ideas are not mutually exclusive; that they are, in fact, inexorably tied.  It is a simple bridge of logic to say that if God can do anything, and does everything, then He must naturally know everything.  For how can one who does something–that is, organize the environment/reality towards a specific objective– do it without knowing how?  And if God can do anything, and anything then must extend from one edge of the universe to the other, in all dimensions in all times and places, from the greatest to the least, then doing everything must necessitate knowing everything.  For I submit that not even the neo-Calvinists, who declare God capable of doing the impossible (which is a total contradiction in terms, because if it can be done by anyone, its not impossible…but hey, the Bible says it (no, it doesn’t), so it must be true, right) will concede that He can do something whilst at the same time not know about it.  This would naturally contradict their own assertion of omniscience.  And furthermore, strictly speaking, knowing is doing…so, actually, to state that God is both omnipotent and omniscient is rather redundant.  All one really needs to assert is that God is omnipotent.  Omniscience and omnipresence are to be logically assumed from such an assertion.  For if we define omnipotence as the power to do everything and anything, then knowing and being, which are perfunctory extensions of doing, are implied.

But redundancy, irrelevancy, and contradictory logic have never stopped a good neo-Calvinist from blathering on and on every Sunday morning and then some, whilst procuring a handsome salary for doing so.

But here is the real problem in the logic of “omnipotence”, not to mention “omniscience” and “omnipresence”.  The problem is that omniscience and omnipresence are direct functions of omnipotence; that is, they are ACTING as a direct function of God’s ability to DO (act) anything.  But the train of conciliatory thoughts does not stop there.  For omnipotence–the power to do anything–is a direct function of God’s very existence; His very being.  For BEING is DOING. To be.  To be is a verb.  It is the verb.  It is the infinite action of anything which exists; any agent, and any object…it is that object/agent’s very SELF.  So “BEING” itself is the beginning and end of anything which exists.  And therefore God’s ability to DO anything is a direct function of His ability to BE.  And if we proclaim that God can DO anything then this “anything” must extend to the very root, the very core, of God’s existential SELF.

Do you see where I am going here?  Can you connect the dots? Can you follow the bread-crumbs of logic all they way back to the very start, where nothing comes before?  Can you find your way to the edge of the universe…through the trees, to the field, to the sea, and beyond to where eternity goes no further?

What I am saying is that if God can DO anything and indeed DOES everything, and it is from this that he can know everything and be everywhere, then it follows that this must include being what is considered to be NOT God.  In other words, God is not only God but He is all that is NOT God, as well.  Which means that if God can do everything this must include the ability to BE everything; for his power of omnipotence stems from His being. BEING everything is the source of God’s omnipotence.

So if God is omnipotent then God is everything which exists.  For the ability to DO stems from His ability to BE.  And so if God can do literally EVERYTHING, then His being, from which His doing proceeds, must extend to the very existential root of Creation.  Which means that Creation doesn’t really exist.  It is all God.  There is nothing which isn’t God.

I say that God is not omnipotent, because I declare that God cannot BE what He is NOT, which means then by definition that He cannot DO everything or KNOW everything, since DOING and KNOWING extends inexorably from the infinite BEING of anything which exists.  And by that I proclaim the free will of man to relate to and define God; and I proclaim the free will of the devil and his angels, and I proclaim that it is this which allows for God to absolutely and justly judge them and condemn them. And so I am declared an apostate and a heretic…worthy of death of the most barbaric kind; and in the dark ages of the hell of Reformed history I’d be guillotined at sundown after a five minute kangaroo court at best, surrounded by a crowd of feces and spit hurling hoards.

And yet declaring that there is no metaphysical distinction between God and His “fallen” and “totally depraved” Creation, thus making God the author and essence of those who engage of the worst kinds of sin and evil–abuse, theft, lying and deceit, rape and murder, child exploitation, rank barbarity, blood lust, and idol worship–is given a pass by the mystic overlords and their fawning crowds in the name of “sound doctrine”.

The hypocrisy does not go unnoticed by the Divine.  Calvinists and Reformers, collectivists and moral equivocators, I can assure you of this.

Stay tuned for part three.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “(Part two) “Omnipotence” and “Omniscience”–God possesses neither: Another failure of Reformed determinism

  1. “If the discernment blogs have taught us anything, it is that Christians can be abused to the point of physical and psychological damage, sometimes destroying the entire scope of their lives, and yet will recoil in rage and panic and hysterics at anyone who dares to question their traditional understanding of God and His church.”

    I totally get the reason why from years of experience! They are afraid of something bigger than God to them. “Being accepted” by the group. I am serious. This one is big. The more I see it, the more it disappoints me.

    How did they get the sportplatz packed with people early on? Because they were all individual thinkers who considered other views than the group’s views? Because they discussed ideas in depth? I think not.

    You can witness this in group after group. It is one reason I became very opposed to the “team” concept in corporate training. Why would anyone want to actually promote group think? Try being the innovative idea person on a team sometime. I watched it in action for years. It is a disaster and peer pressure kicks in

    And I did not have the tools then to connect the dots back then either. But watching John’s videos helped me make the connection. We are contractual beings. But we operate in the opposite and call it altruism.

    Ok, back to reading.

  2. say that God is not omnipotent, because I declare that God cannot BE what He is NOT, which means then by definition that He cannot DO everything or KNOW everything, since DOING and KNOWING extends inexorably from the infinite BEING of anything which exists. And by that I proclaim the free will of man to relate to and define God; and I proclaim the free will of the devil and his angels, and I proclaim that it is this which allows for God to absolutely and justly judge them and condemn them. And so I am declared an apostate and a heretic…worthy of death of the most barbaric kind; and in the dark ages of the hell of Reformed history I’d be guillotined at sundown after a five minute kangaroo court at best, surrounded by a crowd of feces and spit hurling hoards.”

    Bingo! God cannot be what HE is not.

    “And yet declaring that there is no metaphysical distinction between God and His “fallen” and “totally depraved” Creation, thus making God the author and essence of those who engage of the worst kinds of sin and evil–abuse, theft, lying and deceit, rape and murder, child exploitation, rank barbarity, blood lust, and idol worship–is given a pass by the mystic overlords and their fawning crowds in the name of “sound doctrine”.”

    yes!!! Isn’t it amazing how our beliefs can be blasphemous when we think they are “orthodox”? But in order to make God omnipotent and all the other omnis then we have to concede He approves of the evils. And Calvinists do just that!

  3. And this is the inherent problem, I have come to realize, in denying the reason which is spawned by man’s conceptualizing brain through the integration of sensory information…yes, in denying that reason, you give rise to a thousand heresies rooted in the denial of man to actually define SELF. If the SELF cannot be realized, because the senses are flawed and man’s reason is flawed (due to some form of innate “depravity”), then there can be no objective frame of reference to define anything else man observes.

    This always results in tyranny. Always. If man is fundamentally irrational then the only way to deal effectively with him is to eliminate him. You do this two ways. Outright murder or psychological manipulation. The Church has absolutely excelled in both. Rather than being a beacon of light it has been, as John Immel says, a cult of death for thousands of years. It worships death; preaches death; delivers death; and sacrifices itself to death.

    It is important to note that every single civil and sociological advancement of man has been through the explicit rejection of the Church’s ideals. This should scream to Christians that what they believe MUST be farce, but it doesn’t. That’s because of fear. They are afraid that they “could be wrong”, and so they do not trust their senses. Why? Comes full circle. The senses are flawed. Since you always “could” be wrong, we assume that our frame of reference for reality false. Thus “could be wrong” becomes the ABSOLUTE epistemological foundation. Which, practically speaking, translates into: humanity is unable to integrate sensory information efficaciously. Everything you think is a lie at its root.

    It is totally fucked up.

    Better to kill yourself now and go to heaven than to proclaim that life is actually worth living and go to hell is the Reformed assumption.

  4. Lydia,

    I mean, look at the debates happening over at Wartburg concerning YEC. The entire premise of BOTH sides confirms the same premise: human epistemological failure. The old earth science worshipers declare that there are “processes” in nature to which the universe must conform. The Bible is allegorical, not literal. Which…fine. I’m the first person to deny Biblical infallibility…I read metaphor and allegory in to MOST of the Bible. Even Jesus spoke primarily in parables! This should speak volumes to Biblical “literalists”. And look at Psalms! It was a book of poems for crying out loud! Who uses literalism in poetry? The dumbass who wants to write shitty poetry, that’s who. But the point is this: even the OEC proponents concede an “absolute TRUTH” outside of man’s senses. They don’t realize that reality is created by the observer…without YOU OBSERVING, how do you qualify anything as existing? You don’t. All of the universe is INFINITE nothingness outside of the existence of the conscious observer. This means that what we observe is only RELATIVELY finite. Meaning that the relationship between objects we observe in the universe is going to be qualified AND quantified (e.g. mathematics) according to conceptual abstractions which are ENTIRELY products of the human brain. So the difference between OEC and YEC is purely in terms of who’s “reality” are we going to accept. Well…that’s not entirely true. That is actual NATURE of the argument…who’s definitions of “old” and “young” and “time” and “distance” do we want to concede. I have told YECers that if they want to win the argument they simply have to redefine “year” and “distance” so that it can be interpreted as “young” instead of “old”. Make a year a second, for example. And a thousand miles a foot. Presto! Young Earth! My point is that definitions of space and time are purely concepts devised by man to describe relative relationships between himself and the objects he observes. MAN is given charge of organizing the universe…of creating his reality (organizing himself with respect to his environment).

    But the problem with both the scientists and the young earth assholes is that they all think that reality is utterly OUTSIDE of humanity. Thus, it is really just a matter of getting on board with the “true” primary consciousness which determines the whole universe. And that argument? Always ends up in bloodshed and tyranny. As soon as “truth” is vetted by a standard outside of the man’s individual LIFE (existence), then man is simply in the fucking way. Anyone not sacrificing him or herself to the primary consciousness of “biblical infallibility” or the “laws of nature/science” is worthy of death.

    And this is why they hate each other. And why many of them believe that these stupid debates are such that man’s very SALVATION hangs in the balance. You either accept MY interpretation of the world, or you are soooooooooo completely screwed, man. God will hang you by your testicles.

    If you have them. If not…well, by your thumbs then. 🙂

  5. “It is important to note that every single civil and sociological advancement of man has been through the explicit rejection of the Church’s ideals. This should scream to Christians that what they believe MUST be farce, but it doesn’t. That’s because of fear. They are afraid that they “could be wrong”, and so they do not trust their senses. Why? Comes full circle. The senses are flawed. Since you always “could” be wrong, we assume that our frame of reference for reality false. Thus “could be wrong” becomes the ABSOLUTE epistemological foundation. Which, practically speaking, translates into: humanity is unable to integrate sensory information efficaciously. Everything you think is a lie at its root.”

    This what I was trying to get at in an older comment. Fear of failure, fear of even the possibility of being wrong. Don’t think at home or anywhere, leave it to the seminary grads who will do it for you in church sermons, they’re audio online 24/7, thankfully. 😉

    So what are some examples of thinking without fear of failure & the advancements:

    Ben Franklin & his lightning rod. The puritans took him to task as heretic until they saw the benefits of churches NOT being struck & burning to the ground. He invented much. But from his experiments with lightening we have electricity. Wow!

    Copernicus & Galileo. Their notion that the earth revolved around the sun (that the earth was not the center of the universe) was considered a heresy. It was unchristian.

    Any more advancements anyone can think of?

    Independent ideas typically swim against the river of church orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has replaced God. That is a cryin’ shame. God gave us brains, God wants us to use them.

  6. For clarification, lightning would strike the lightning rod (which was grounded) instead of the church building itself.

    Ben Franklin’s defense? Why put roofs over your heads at all? You are intervening in God’s divine ordination by covering your heads… Now that’s funny!

  7. It would strike the church steeple, which was usually the tallest structure in any town until the late 19th century. Sooooo, wasn’t that lightning ordained by God? What right did the church have to put up lightning rods to stop churches from burning down? If that is what God decreed and all . . . 🙄

    I guess churches should have burned to the ground, women should die in childbirth, no one should take insulin, etc., etc., because God actually hates his creation and image bearers and really desires most of his depraved (not my word) image bearers to be dead! Argh!

    And that holds up like a rock in water to the fact that Jesus came to give life . . .

  8. Exactly, Bridget! Insulin was a wonderful invention & has helped many people, young & old.

    “Jesus came to give life…” Yes, ironic, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s