Non-Scriptural Monotheism

[Cary Cook]

There is no philosophical reason why the Supreme Being should be thought to be omnipotent, omniscient, omni-whatever, or even "good" in any meaningful sense.

There is no reason why an assumed God to whom we are accountable (Supreme Being or otherwise) would have inspired any particular body of scriptures to be his authoritative "word" to humanity. Belief in scripture as an expression of God's will is responsible for such travesties as the Crusades, Inquisition, Taliban, 9-11, etc. The God(s) of all Earthly scriptures is unjust. He rewards and punishes based on what one believes firstly, and how one behaves secondly. Belief (probability judgment) is an involuntary act. No just being, (God or otherwise) would reward or punish someone for what he honestly believes.

A person who wants to "get right with God" can easily get right with a just God simply by the effort to do so. i.e. by experimenting to see what can be learned of God, and by repeatedly asking for correction of errors.

Non-scriptural monotheism is not revealed; it is figured out.

 

[Jumi]

Well, I mostly agree with you, being a non-scriptural monotheist myself. There is some value in scripture and indeed many other books, but oftentimes leaving the scriptures to the side is the best way to go.

Good to have more of us here.

 

[Cary Cook]

Gawd !!
You're the first one other than me I've ever remotely encountered.
Please check out my website Sanity Quest Publishing especially the essays section.
Are there any more of us?
What have you written?
Where else do you post?

 

[Jumi]

Gawd !!
You're the first one other than me I've ever remotely encountered.
Please check out my website Sanity Quest Publishing especially the essays section.
Are there any more of us?
What have you written?
Where else do you post?

This is the only forum I follow and write, I'm sure there are more of us on this forum, with a bit different views of course. I was an atheist when I registered here, so my posts are all over the place.

 

[Cary Cook]

This is the only forum I follow and write, I'm sure there are more of us on this forum, with a bit different views of course. I was an atheist when I registered here, so my posts are all over the place.

OK, I'll check out your other posts.

BTW, the term "Pure" monotheism has been hijacked by Muslims.

 

[Jumi]

OK, I'll check out your other posts.

There's quite a lot of them, if you're curious ask away.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

There is no philosophical reason why the Supreme Being should be thought to be omnipotent, omniscient, omni-whatever, or even "good" in any meaningful sense.

There is no reason why an assumed God to whom we are accountable (Supreme Being or otherwise) would have inspired any particular body of scriptures to be his authoritative "word" to humanity. Belief in scripture as an expression of God's will is responsible for such travesties as the Crusades, Inquisition, Taliban, 9-11, etc. The God(s) of all Earthly scriptures is unjust. He rewards and punishes based on what one believes firstly, and how one behaves secondly. Belief (probability judgment) is an involuntary act. No just being, (God or otherwise) would reward or punish someone for what he honestly believes.

A person who wants to "get right with God" can easily get right with a just God simply by the effort to do so. i.e. by experimenting to see what can be learned of God, and by repeatedly asking for correction of errors.

Non-scriptural monotheism is not revealed; it is figured out.

While I don't not believe the scriptures of any one religion to be essential (I'm pantheist, and a nature nut, I could easily worship the God who created all of this), I find the Torah/Bible rather interesting. The Quran, nah, I can do without (most of it seemed to be Muhammad's pet sayings couched as the word of Allah), but the other one, it basically shows the story of a God, who does not actually have to be exclusive to Christianity, or Judaism. We see over the many stories, a God who cares about birds and cattle, who sends naturalistic plagues, and who wants to spread the message of an Afterlife even to nonbelievers.

This is the God I care about, not something written in a book. But if I'd never read the book, I'm not sure I would have understood things as well.

 

[Cary Cook]

While I don't not believe the scriptures of any one religion to be essential (I'm pantheist, and a nature nut, I could easily worship the God who created all of this), I find the Torah/Bible rather interesting. The Quran, nah, I can do without (most of it seemed to be Muhammad's pet sayings couched as the word of Allah), but the other one, it basically shows the story of a God, who does not actually have to be exclusive to Christianity, or Judaism. We see over the many stories, a God who cares about birds and cattle, who sends naturalistic plagues, and who wants to spread the message of an Afterlife even to nonbelievers.

This is the God I care about, not something written in a book. But if I'd never read the book, I'm not sure I would have understood things as well.

I think I totally agree with you on scripture. Let's see:

I do not believe scripture (Bible or otherwise) to be inspired by any deity in the sense that everything in it is true, or that the directives are applicable to all generations following those to whom the books were written. I do, however, believe scripture (at least most of the Bible) to be inspired by the God to whom mankind is accountable in the sense that the directives were applicable to the generation to whom the books were written, and to a limited and/or diminishing sense applicable to succeeding generations.

I also believe scripture (at least the Bible) to be inspired in the sense that God inspired men to leave a record of their efforts to understand and communicate with God, so that succeeding generations can learn from the successes and failures of their predecessors. I think this position is not only more philosophically and pragmatically defensible, but also more scripturally defensible.

 

[tayla]

There is no philosophical reason why the Supreme Being should be thought to be omnipotent, omniscient, omni-whatever, or even "good" in any meaningful sense.

The omni- terms for describing God assume philosophy can describe God. I find they all lead to intellectual contradictions, so I don't try to describe God like that. Nor to prove God using arguments such as "he is the first cause".

But I do think God is like a person, and that he is loving and caring, and has attributes we appreciate in humans such as goodness, beauty, love, and etc.