When does Deism stop being Deism?

[Justin108]

I am NOT a pure Deist, I am a CHRISTIAN Deist...there's a difference.

A Christian Deist believes in God and the moral teachings of Jesus. ALL Christian Churches espose the belief in God and the moral teachings of Jesus...that is their Deistic BASELINE.

The various Christian Churches have ADDED to that baseline, some more than others. Accretions of Dogma, Doctrine and Creeds...Elaborations.

Jesus himself taught fundamentals, and sought to simplify, and purify his native Judaism of accretions (purity laws, etc.) and emphsize the basics.

"Love God with your whole heart, mind and strengh, and love your neigbor as yourself"

Jesus characterized this as the "Law and the Prophets" Seems pretty basic, don't you think? Christian Deists embrace those laws as well.

All the rest is commentary, as Hillel said.

But I also believe that God judges based on "works" the DOING of the faith and TEACHUBG of Jesus, not the professing, "LORD LORD" stuff.

-THE BIBLE: : Should be taken seriously, not literally. It should be remembered that the Bible is not a book of history or science, but rather the FAITH history of a primitive, but Spiritually evolving people. Thus he Bible can be considered the product of a Divine-human partnership...Inspired, not dictated...

...Just a simple belief in God and embracing these instructions (the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule) as teachings from God.

deism
[dee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism

deism

Pronunciation: /ˈdeɪɪz(ə)m/ /ˈdi�ɪz(ə)m/
noun


Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with theism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... lish/deism

deism
de·ism (dē′ĭz′əm, d�′-)
n.
A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation.


deism (ˈdi�ɪzəm; ˈdeɪ-)
n
1. (Theology) belief in the existence of God based solely on natural reason, without reference to revelation. Compare theism


de•ism (ˈdi ɪz əm)

n.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejection of supernatural revelation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deism

Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm


All of the official definitions of Deism state a few key requirements for a belief to be defined as "Deism", namely

- A belief in god based solely on reason as opposed to revelation.
- A belief in a god that does not intervene with his creation.

Considering these definition, would it be inconsistent to consider oneself a Deist while believing god judges our actions?

...God judges based on "works" the DOING of the faith and TEACHUBG of Jesus...

Considering these definition, would it be inconsistent to consider oneself a Deist while believing god has revealed to man, whether directly or through divine inspiration, the 10 Commandments?

...embracing these instructions (the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule) as teachings from God.

Do these beliefs clearly suggest a god that intervenes with his creation?

Do these beliefs have a purely rational and naturalistic basis?

Can one conclude that the 10 Commandments came from god using reason alone?

Can one conclude that god judges our deeds using reason alone?

[beeswax]

So what is the right term for someone who believes in a Creator and one who intervenes in the world and yet rejects all religious texts and their leaders?

You may come back and say that is 'theism' but 'most' people would then associate that with a recognised religious group. I don't think Christian Diest is an oxymoron and there could be a Muslim Diest who reject most of the Quran or a Jewish Diest who reject most of the OT. I say 'most' to describe that there could be 'some' aspects of religious text that is so profound as to make it relative to that particular group.

Its not up to the dictionary to define everything as the compilers of such work are not infallible and beliefs cannot always be explained in black and white terms even if others demand that of them. I am a Diest Plus and am happy with that description.

[Justin108]

So what is the right term for someone who believes in a Creator and one who intervenes in the world and yet rejects all religious texts and their leaders?

It depends. In what way do you believe god intervenes in the world?

[historia]

So what is the right term for someone who believes in a Creator and one who intervenes in the world and yet rejects all religious texts and their leaders?

You may come back and say that is 'theism' but 'most' people would then associate that with a recognised religious group. I don't think Christian Diest is an oxymoron and there could be a Muslim Diest who reject most of the Quran or a Jewish Diest who reject most of the OT. I say 'most' to describe that there could be 'some' aspects of religious text that is so profound as to make it relative to that particular group.

I think the right adjective here is 'liberal'. Elijah John is articulating a kind of classic, 18th Century liberal Christianity. Calling that Christian 'Deism' seems both unnecessary and a bit confusing.

And it's not so much that liberal Jews, Christians, and Muslims reject parts of their scriptures and traditions, so much as they just don't interpret those texts literally.

So maybe the right term for you, beeswax, would be a liberal theist. A strange term, I confess, but your position is not typical.

[Elijah John]

So what is the right term for someone who believes in a Creator and one who intervenes in the world and yet rejects all religious texts and their leaders?

You may come back and say that is 'theism' but 'most' people would then associate that with a recognised religious group. I don't think Christian Diest is an oxymoron and there could be a Muslim Diest who reject most of the Quran or a Jewish Diest who reject most of the OT. I say 'most' to describe that there could be 'some' aspects of religious text that is so profound as to make it relative to that particular group.

I think the right adjective here is 'liberal'. Elijah John is articulating a kind of classic, 18th Century liberal Christianity. Calling that Christian 'Deism' seems both unnecessary and a bit confusing.

And it's not so much that liberal Jews, Christians, and Muslims reject parts of their scriptures and traditions, so much as they just don't interpret those texts literally.

So maybe the right term for you, beeswax, would be a liberal theist. A strange term, I confess, but your position is not typical.

18th century perhaps, and I think that is causing some of this confusion. I go by the 18th century definition of Deism as exemplified by Thomas Paine.

But since I also incorporate some elements of Chrsitianity, I call it "Christian Deism", and see Thomas Jefferson as an an example of what a Christian Deist would look like, though I don't think he described himself that way.

I understand the term "Deism" means something different today, and most take those dictionary definitions instead of how Paine defined it.

I think my friend Beeswax here was merely explaining Christian Deism, not embracing it. To the best of my knowledge, he is (unlike my self) a PURE Deist, at least in the Thomas Paine sense of the word.

[beeswax]

Hi EJ, I would consider myself as a Diest PLUS...

That is someone who believes in the Creator/God who does intervene in the world but has no 'religious' preferences despite what the Jews thought. Its ridiculous to suggest the Creator was watching and intervening with just them and not looking anywhere else in his creation although we can have weeds growing places which we ignore ie my analogy with the Gardener. ie My idea and its probably a more humanist idea that God is everywhere and has no affiliation to any religious group or non religious group and HE/IT decides when to intervene or not etc. I don't think humanists believe in God do they?

Just had a look...

Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

So, NO, I'm not a humanist then..But believe in the scientific method and reason as Thomas Paine did. He 'hoped' there was an afterlife and I think there will be.. So a bit of a Christian and Jewish idea there and so once again the point is the dictionary definitionS does not cover 'everyone' or every situation.

[Elijah John]

Hi EJ, I would consider myself as a Diest PLUS...

That is someone who believes in the Creator/God who does intervene in the world but has no 'religious' preferences despite what the Jews thought. Its ridiculous to suggest the Creator was watching and intervening with just them and not looking anywhere else in his creation although we can have weeds growing places which we ignore ie my analogy with the Gardener. ie My idea and its probably a more humanist idea that God is everywhere and has no affiliation to any religious group or non religious group and HE/IT decides when to intervene or not etc. I don't think humanists believe in God do they?

Just had a look...

Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

So, NO, I'm not a humanist then..But believe in the scientific method and reason as Thomas Paine did. He 'hoped' there was an afterlife and I think there will be.. So a bit of a Christian and Jewish idea there and so once again the point is the dictionary definitionS does not cover 'everyone' or every situation.

Not sure where the PLUS part comes in...Since you seem to mirror the Paine definition quite well.

Maybe by the modern definition you are a Deist plus?

An old 18th century style Deist, or a modern Deist-plus perhaps?

[otseng]

In terms of convincing debate, you have nothing to offer.

Moderator Warning


Please just present the logical arguments instead of commenting on another person.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.