Wednesday 1 November 2017

The New Monotheism

If I were to subscribe to a monotheism, then it would have to be one that was entirely free from the Mosaic Law, the Crucifixion and Hindu casteism. Some reformed Hindu monotheisms do meet these criteria, especially if we are able to include Sikhism as both a reformed Islam and a reformed Hinduism. However, I am inclined to agree with other Hindus who regard the one God as a personification of the one reality which is either impersonal or transpersonal if the latter term has any meaning. The most appropriate pronoun would be either It or That.

Let us rededicate ourselves to the One.

9 comments:

  1. Kaor, Paul!

    Like you I reject the Hindu caste system, but what exactly are your objections to either the Mosaic Law or the Crucifixion of Christ?

    And I disagree with those Hindus who reject polytheism and conceive of God as being a personification of "reality" which is either impersonal or transpersonal. I don't think using the latter term makes sense when applied to God. Because I argue God cannot BE God if He is not also a Person.

    Given the hostility seen between Sikhs and Muslims in THE PESHAWAR LANCERS, I doubt many Sikhs would appreciate you calling their religion a kind of reformed Islam!

    The kind of monotheism you seem to favor does not seem all that much different from 18th century Deism, with its abstract conception of God as indifferent to or remote from us. I do not think such views will ever carry much weight with many--because of how "dry" and unappealing it will be to most people.

    Also, by what AUTHORITY can advocates of a "Deistic" concept of God speak from? Can Deists or New Monotheists appeal to a prophet like Moses, the other Jewish prophets, Christ (whom Christians believe to be MORE than a mere prophet), Zarathustra, or even Mohammed or Joseph Smith?

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean,
      The Mosaic Law includes stoning adulterers and worse. Crucifixion is torture. Blood sacrifice is surely abhorrent. I say which kind of monotheism I would prefer but then go on to state a monist, not a monotheist, position. The One knows itself through conscious beings. Thus, by dealing with each other, we deal with It. This is not the remote Deist divinity. Deists cannot claim any prophetic authority but can only appeal to reason.
      Paul.

      Delete
    2. Kaor, Paul!

      True, what you said about how some of the laws in the Pentateuch were harsh. But I don't think it's out of place to point out that compared to their pagan neighbors, the laws of the ancient Jews were surprisingly mild. And, as time passed, I get the impression the Jews tended to SOFTEN the actual penalties imposed. For example, after the assassination of King Joash of Judah, his son and successor Azariah put to death only the actual murderers of his father, and spared their children. Iow, Jewish law did not accept collective responsibility for crime, only individual and personal guilt. As 4/2 Kings 5.6-7 says: "And when he had possession of the kingdom, he put his servants to death that had slain the king his father; but the children of the murderers he did not put to death, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sins." And the Law of Moses also required a minimum two witnesses for conviction of crime. So, it's not all black!

      Of course crucifixion is torture, one of the most gruesome means of inflicting an agonizing death conceived by the depraved imagination of mankind. But, that was the means GOD chose for redeeming mankind, for bridging the otherwise impassable gulf between him and a fallen human race. By accepting such a degrading death on the cross, Our Lord was PROVING to us how He was willing to suffer as much pain as any other human being, to be like us in all ways except sin.

      And I can't agree with monism or any other kind of pantheism. I am not God or a part of God. Nor is it possible for individuals to some how "merge" together and become a God.

      Yes, we can come to some kind of knowledge of God using reason, which is what Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and St. Thomas Aquinas strove to do. But a merely abstract conception of God will not carry much conviction with most human beings. They will rightly prefer to listen to prophets or alleged prophets claiming to speak with divine authority.

      And the only REAL prophets were Moses and the other Jewish prophets, culminating with Christ, Who was more than a mere prophet. But I do have respect for Zarathustra (or Zoroaster), the founder or codifier of Zoroastrianism. He taught a very high faith, coming very close to monotheism. I recall how Chesterton had nothing but respect for that religion, in his comments about Zoroastrianism in his book THE EVERLASTING MAN (which he considered the best of the non Judaeo-Christian faiths).

      Sean

      Delete
    3. Sean,
      There is one kind of argument that I think we can clear out of the way now. Statements of the form, "For God TO BE God, he must be x, y and z," are tautologies. I agree that, if "God" means a being with the properties x, y and z, and if I refer to an ultimate reality that does not have those properties, then communication will be clearer if I do not call that reality "God." In fact, I refer simply to "the One."
      Paul.

      Delete
    4. The Trinity can be regarded as "transpersonal." Three one-dimensional lines form one two-dimensional triangle. Three Persons form one God. (I do not believe this but it is one interpretation of a Christian doctrine.)

      Delete
    5. My way of helping someone would be to prevent their suffering, not to share it: not to heal a wound caused by a poisoned arrow but to create a species who never had any motivation to fire poisoned arrows.

      Delete
  2. Kaor, Paul!

    I don't quite understand why you said what you did in your comment dated 3 November at 10:41. I don't think I was talking about what God would have to be to BE God. But I realize you were talking about what I said about monism/pantheism.

    But why we should care about the "ultimate reality" you called the One if that One doesn't care about or is not even a Person? I think this is even more abstract, remote, and unlikely to appeal to many people than even Deism.

    Very interesting, what you said about the Trinity. It reminded me of how Dante used geometrical or possibly mathematical concepts in his struggle to describe what he had seen of the vision granted him of the Trinity in his PARADISO.

    Last, now you seem to think you would have preferred that God had erased Original Sin, for Adam's descendants to have been born NOT prone to sin, error, and death. But God created the soul of Adam free from all such defects and nonetheless the first man still fell. Granted that, I don't see how the descendants could have been spared the effects of the ancestor's sin.

    If my remarks here seem weak it's because I'm going beyond what I know or understand. I would need to read more deeply into the theology of the fall and redemption of mankind.

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean,
      We should care about reality because it is reality and we are all part of it. Each person is the One conscious of Itself in space and time.
      Paul.

      Delete
    2. If the first human beings had been created without any motivation to fall, then they would not have fallen - we confidently predict that a saint will not act from petty vindictiveness but do not regard him as unfree - but I think that human beings had evolved and therefore retained animal motivations.

      Delete