Are there any religions/sects that currently worship a singular god that is not all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present and possibly not eternal? No ancient history or pantheons, please.
Wouldn’t the various sects of Hindu Gods count?
Also, perhaps Wiccan?
Do they deny the existence of other gods?
What?
No one Hindu God is all knowing so compared to monotheistic Gods they are not all powerful or all knowing.
I know almost nothing about them, but there are modern worshippers of Thor.
But I think you are skipping the “no pantheons” part.
So checking my assumptions @Czarcasm, you mean a monotheistic creed whose god (small G in this case) isn’t some flavor of eternal or omnipotent?
Pretty much, yes.
Does “no pantheons” mean “don’t believe in a pantheon” or “don’t worship the entire pantheon”? If the latter, you’ll find folks like that. If the former– “We believe there’s only one God, and frankly they ain’t all that”–I’d be surprised.
Zorastrianism may fit the bill. Zoroastrians worship a single supreme god, Ahura Mazda, who represents goodness, light, and truth. He is eternal and uncreated, and he is he creator of the material universe.
But they also affirm the existence of other supernatural entities, not created by Ahura Mazda, and lesser than him. One of these, Angra Mainyu, reprsenting evil, darkness and untruth, stands as an opposing force or principal to Ahura Mazda. The unfolding history of creation is a continuing struggle between these two entities, which implies that, whatever about being omnisicent and omnipresent, Ahura Mazda is not omnipotent.
The former.
Limited Theism/Theistic Finitism may fit the bill:
Theistic finitism, also known as finitistic theism or finite godism, is the belief in a deity that is limited.[1][2] It has been proposed by some philosophers and theologians to solve the problem of evil. Most finitists accept the absolute goodness of God but reject omnipotence.[3]
It appears to be a position more common among philosophers than regular churchgoers, so i don’t know if it qualifies as a “sect,” but philosophy majors notoriously have a hard time getting sects anyway.
You are definitely going to Heck for that one.
I used to make an argument along those lines in my younger years: I could get a god that was omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, but not all three. And it wasn’t worth worshipping one that was only two of the three.
Anyway, depending on values of “worshipping” Pastafarianists should qualify, as the FSM is absolutely a flawed creator, deliberately screwing with the creation that he screwed up after creating it on a bender.
It probably doesn’t count because even the most rapid followers of the FSM I know don’t take his noodliness seriously, but can and do worship. I can’t evaluate the quality of their faith objectively any more than that of a more commonly structured faith.
I’ve held this position since long before I so much as took Philosophy 101; it struck me as reasonable then, and it still does now. (I mean, if someone mentioned that they took six days to do something, and then they rested on the seventh, what would you conclude?)
Satanism?
I am intrigued by the idea of a monotheistic Satanism.
“There is no god but God, and He suuuuuuuucckkkkssssss…”
Kim Il Sung and to a lesser extent his son Kim Jong Il and grandson Kim Jong Un have been elevated to ‘God’ or at least ‘God-like’ status through the Juche ideology of the North Korean government.
Hey, you don’t get to be “The Big Guy” unless you’re Numero Uno.
As a monotheism, or as an opposing religion?
It is possible to be the “Big Guy” without being bigger than the universe itself.