There is a theological doctrine which I believe ( very unpopular, the theologians who first posited it took a lot of guff) called "The Open View of God". In short it proposes that God does not know what hasn't occurred, unless he uses omnipotence to reach into history and bring it about. However, being God he can envision every possibility, and if he chooses, be prepared to perfectly respond to each. Thus total free will is established, and it totally absolves God of creating evil. To support this among believers requires a lot of Bible exegesis, answering many questions, some a little hostile, and having a thick skin. But I don't believe in an eternal hell, so I am used to the incoming. Without these beliefs, that I have solidly proven to myself from the Bible, I might still be an atheist.
That was interesting.
We seem to agree that removing omniscience from God's C.V. strengthens the religion. In the days of the Bible writers, when various tribes were represented by different god, there was probably an escalation of the Hebrew god's powers to eclipse those of Baal or whoever, and omnipotence and omniscience strengthened the religion.
But today, in the light of so many advances in understanding, they hurt it. The ancients didn't have the problem of the existence of evil to deal with, but modern theologians do. Today, that doctrine is counterproductive. It is sufficient that God be just as prescient and potent as necessary to create a universe, create man, and collect souls for heaven, and no more.
What you and I are doing - modifying mainstream doctrine to make it conform better to reality - is probably what has been happening since man first began generating stories about gods. In each era, the narrative resembles the contemporary state of understanding
Your comment on hell also reflects that need to make modifications there. Hell theology is not consistent with a good, loving god. That wasn't a problem when it was created, and the more threatening the depiction of hell was, the more effective the doctrine.
But today, those ideas are becoming a problem, and we see evidence of theological adaptations.
There's a discussion going on in another thread about whether the ancients believed that the earth had four corners or that the days of creation were 24 hour periods. Elsewhere, a poster said that the ancients couldn't have literally believed that people lived for 900 years.
Calling all of these metaphorical is another adaptation to modernity. Once upon a time, there was no argument against any of those claims. Now, looking through modern eyes, they're apparently a problem, and the theology is being revised to conform to what is known today.
That's probably a good thing. The ones lagging furthest behind - the fundamentalists and creationists - are more of a problem than those trying to adapt to what is known today.
Could America have had its revolution if there wasn't a willingness to revisit the meaning of Romans 13:1-2 ? :
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
It's interesting how the founding fathers dealt with this. They created rights - the right to overthrow an unjust government - and attributed them to the source of the scripture being ignored, our Creator. That was a good use of this process.
Could slavery have been abolished if there wasn't a willingness to incorporate an emerging morality regarding slavery and reinterpret Ephesians 6:5?
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
So I say go for it, shmogie. Jettison of omniscience, omnipotence, and hell theology. They're anchors.
