When does Deism stop being Deism?

[Justin108]

[beeswax]

As I said, it doesn't matter what the dictionary definitions say as they were the ideas of those contributing to the definitions and by using different versions confirm there IS a variation based on 'opinion'.

Now for me, based purely on reason, is that I don't find it plausible that any Creator or God who created the universe and obviously us here on the planet Earth would NOT be interested in it and would NOT intervene if he/it wished?

Tell me of ONE gardener who plants anything would just leave it alone and would not revisit or do things to improve things? There is always weeding to be done and we know we have 'evolved' and so maybe that is the Creator doing his chores so to speak.

EJ is absolutely correct and he will answer for himself to suggest that at the ROOT of all religion/faiths is a basic belief in that Creator/God and each one THEN adds things to support THEIR ideas which may or may not be true even if they claim inspiration from that Creator as anyone can do the same and do so..So they are ALL Deists in that regard. Deists even like Thomas Jefferson who wrote his version of the bible by removing all the bad stuff would still claim that parts of it were inspired and useful as a means to live by. So the fact that MANY religions and faiths use these basic tenants of love and compassion does NOT mean they are strictly theists or Desists and why the dictionary definition does not cover all the various options. It never does!

[Justin108]

Now for me, based purely on reason, is that I don't find it plausible that any Creator or God who created the universe and obviously us here on the planet Earth would NOT be interested in it and would NOT intervene if he/it wished?

Tell me of ONE gardener who plants anything would just leave it alone and would not revisit or do things to improve things? There is always weeding to be done and we know we have 'evolved' and so maybe that is the Creator doing his chores so to speak.

You are attributing far too many human traits to the deistic god. We know nothing of this god other than it exists. We have no reason to believe it care or can care nor reason to believe it holds any interests in anything. These are baseless assumptions. The ability to care and find interest in our surroundings are the results of our biology. God has no such biology.

But suppose god did intervene, to say he did so with Moses, inspiring him to write the 10 Commandments is a HUGE leap. It is far too specific to be the result of reason and rests far to much on the Biblical claim that the 10 Commandments are if god. It is just as likely that god had a hand in writing the American Constitution than in writing the 10 Commandments.

I will meet you half way in supposing that reason might lead you to the conclusion that god influences or cares for his creation, but to claim god influenced humanity in these specific ways (Jesus, the 10 Commandments) is nothing more than a baseless assumption. Therefore, it does not conform to deism.

EJ is absolutely correct and he will answer for himself to suggest that at the ROOT of all religion/faiths is a basic belief in that Creator/God and each one THEN adds things to support THEIR ideas which may or may not be true even if they claim inspiration from that Creator as anyone can do the same and do so

Yes, and the moment they add these elements, deism stops being deism and becomes theism. The moment they add these elements, the key elements of what separates deism from theism (belief based solely on reason, an indifferent god) then it is no longer deism

[beeswax]

Justin, its not evidence and certainly not admissible in any Court of Opinion or even in Law but I forgot to mention as some posters do mention on here and that is 'personal revelation' as some kind of proof 'for them' that the Creator/God does indeed influence things here on earth but they tend to belong to a Church of some kind admittedly. In my case I can add my testimony of many years that happens but cannot stand the Christian Church or accept the bible is the word of God or that Jesus was other than a Jewish man with his OWN ideas about God.

I also believe Thomas Paine was right in that any personal revelation is not evidence for the supernatural and is therefore not incumbent on anyone else to believe them or it. And there can be more mundane and obvious explanations for some or many claims and as a practical engineer, will always seek to do that and find one if I can. So much so that I would prefer to find one and not rely on any God or supernatural explanation. But I can't in some cases and why its a personal thing with lots of us I suppose. I ask myself why why why, the whole time!

[Divine Insight]

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...

I absolutely agree that the claim that some God judges people, and specifically requires that people place their faith in the Hebrew demigod Jesus, is not compatible with Deism.

I've made it clear many times before that I personally consider the term "Christian Deist" to be an oxymoron that makes no sense at all. It's like claiming to be a "Married Bachelor". All this does is reject the very meaning of the words. So how can that be a meaningful description of anything?

From what I understand, according to the rules of this forum we are not permitted to tell anyone that they aren't what they claim to be. However, it does seem reasonable that we should at least be able to say that the thing the person claims to be makes absolutely no sense to us, and appears to be an oxymoron based on the dictionary definitions of the terms being use.

I totally agree that the terms "Christian" and "Deist" being used together as a single label make no more sense than the terms "Married" and "Bachelor" being used simultaneously to describe an individual person. They are either married, or they are a bachelor, it makes no sense to claim that they are both, simultaneously. It defies the very meaning of the terms. And as far as I'm concerned the terms "Christian" and "Deist" are equally incompatible as a single description.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

And I made reference to Thomas Paine's definition, which sounds remarkably like the quote you used below from the dictionary:


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

Paine would say that it is POSSIBLE for God to reveal something directly to an individual, but that when it is repeated to another, it then becomes hearsay to the third party.

Regarding the DOING of God's Word, (whatever the origin of said Word)...the Commandments that Jesus quotes and summarized as "the Law and the Prophets" can be apprehended by Reason.

But a Deist OR a Theist would likely say that would be God's GIFT of Reason. (God-given gift of Reason)

In a sense Reason IS revelation.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by Justin108]

Also, I don't think Paine would agree that God is indifferent, and he even left open the probability there is an afterlife.

He said something to the effect after discrediting the most of the Bible ..."what then, are we to have no Word of God? By no means, the word of God is the very Creation we behold, which cannot be forged and publishes itself so that all may read."

Not an exact quote, but that was from memory of an excerpt from the Age of Reason.

Does not sound like an indifferent God to me..

Also regarding the afterlife, Paine said that it was more likely that the God who called him into existence in the first place, would do it in the hereafter. But Thomas Paine did not concern himself with the exact nature of the afterlife.

But those definitions and examples aside, the difference between Deism and Theism is not in God's caring or lack thereof...(one can be a non-interventionist spectator and still care) but rather in the acceptance or rejection of revelation. A STRICT Deist, does not rely on revelation...A Theist accepts at least SOME revelation.

As I have indicated before, I am not a strict Deist, and you can call me a simple, basic Theist if you like.

But I do not accept any given passage as revelation just because it is claimed to be from God, (the Bible after all, was assembled by commitee) but if it rings true in my heart, I tend to accept it. Those parts may transcend Reason, but do not contradict it. Anything repellent (not merely challenging or uncomfortable) that goes AGAINST Reason and my understanding of the nature of God, I can and do reject. Like the slave beating verses do not sound to me to be of Divine origin.

But a Christian Deist is one like Jefferson, one who accepts Jesus' code of ethics as the most "sublime ever devised by man". If you read the Jefferson Bible, you will find much from the Synoptics, but very little from John.

Let me put it this way, a strict Deist looks to Reason and Nature alone...A Christian Deist tries to find the Deistic (Reasonable) elements in the Bible and in Christianity.

To a Christian Deist belief in God is reasonable, but believing that Jesus, a man, IS God is not reasonable.

Jesus himself had some Deistic streaks in him, when he used images from Nature to illuminate his parables....And he reasoned, and confounded some of his detractors. (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, but to God that which is God's).

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Once again the whole premise of your argument depends on the asusmption that orthodox, trinitarian Christianity is the ONLY valid version of Christianity.

Remember Jesus himself was not a "Christian" but a devout, Montheistic Jew.

The religion OF Jesus (Judaism) is different from the religion ABOUT Jesus.

Jesus teachings (at least those as portrayed in the Synoptics) are closer to basic Deism than they are to the Creeds of the post council Church (es)...

Let me ask you this, do you agree or disagree with Thomas Paine's statement that every religion is Deist in the first article of it's faith?

If yes, then aren't folks who belong to any particular religion entitled to seek and find those Deistic elements in their faith?

[Elijah John]

Now for me, based purely on reason, is that I don't find it plausible that any Creator or God who created the universe and obviously us here on the planet Earth would NOT be interested in it and would NOT intervene if he/it wished?

Tell me of ONE gardener who plants anything would just leave it alone and would not revisit or do things to improve things? There is always weeding to be done and we know we have 'evolved' and so maybe that is the Creator doing his chores so to speak.

Excellent analogy and refutation of the whole "non-interventionist" God notion. Seems to me that God DOES intervene, via natural processes...things like healing, and evolution...and the laws of physics...these are tools in the Creator's toolbox.

Just as DNA programs the cell, it is entirely plausable that the Creator has implanted instinct in animals, Reason and intuition in humans, and evolution and the laws of physics in the Universe.

If there IS a God, it is entirely reasonable to believe He has a purpose and works through natural processes, though his ultimate goals and ends may be beyond our comprehension at present. All part of the Grand Design.

[Divine Insight]

Once again the whole premise of your argument depends on the asusmption that orthodox, trinitarian Christianity is the ONLY valid version of Christianity.

Hardly.

I think the premise of my argument is far more vividly exposed by your proclamations:

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

I didn't see precisely which post of yours this quote came from, but I've heard you "preaching" this doctrine many times in the past. And this can hardly be claimed to be Deism based solely on natural reason. These claims of a judgmental God who specifically requires that we place our faith in the mythological demigod of the Christians are not compatible with Deism. These are claims that come directly from mythology and very specific rumors. In fact, in Christianity the "rumors" include the claim that Jesus was the "only begotten Son of God". In fact the Christian "rumors" claim that God spoke from the clouds confirming that Jesus was his Son.

Christianity claims that Jesus is "The Christ", and by this they specifically mean that he is the "Son of God". This is what Christianity holds to be true.

As far as I can see, you actually reject Christianity entirely when it come to these specific mythological claims. Therefore I personally don't even see you qualifying as a "Christian" by any stretch of the imagination.

Remember Jesus himself was not a "Christian" but a devout, Montheistic Jew.

So? You're not claiming to be Jesus. You're claiming to be a "Christian".

The religion OF Jesus (Judaism) is different from the religion ABOUT Jesus.

Again, so? Christianity is a religion ABOUT Jesus.

Jesus teachings (at least those as portrayed in the Synoptics) are closer to basic Deism than they are to the Creeds of the post council Church (es)...

And that wouldn't be compatible with "Christianity" anyway.

Let me ask you this, do you agree or disagree with Thomas Paine's statement that every religion is Deist in the first article of it's faith?

I totally disagree. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all religions that are based entirely on mythology. Specifically a mythology that claims that a very specific personified Godhead (not at all unlike the Greek Zeus) had interacted and commanded men to do all manner of things. Let's not forget about Lot's wife being turned in to a pillar of stone by this God (not unlike Thor who throws lightening bolts). And have you ever heard the story of Noah and the "Great Flood"? Hardly a story that it compatible with Deism.

So I disagree with Thomas Paine's statement that every religion is Deist in the first article of its faith. That's not true at all. These Abrahamic religions are squarely based on ancient myths of a personified jealous God who commanded that "Thou shalt not place any other Gods before me".

The Abrahamic religions are based on mythology not on Deism.

If yes, then aren't folks who belong to any particular religion entitled to seek and find those Deistic elements in their faith?

Well, my answer was no in any case.

Attempting to salvage religions that are clearly based on mythology by trying to twist them into some form of Deism, is IMHO an extremely futile endeavor.

In fact, all this tells me is that the persons who try to do this have recognized that the mythology itself has no credibility. Thus in an desperate attempt to save the credibility of these outrageous myths, they turn to every "trick" in the book.

But trying to make Christianity into Deism is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. May as well just confess that the mythology has no merit of its own and start fresh with religions that might be more compatible with Deism naturally.

There is nothing "Deistic" about the Abrahamic doctrines. They have their personified God interacting with mankind far too much. The Old Testament had this God instructing people what to do all the time. This God even participates in wars by magically making city walls come tumbling down.

The Jesus story proclaim a virgin birth. The saving of Jesus from King Herod. The Resurrection of Jesus. And let's not forget the God speaking from the clouds too, as this is clearly part of the Christian myths.

And Islam has simply myths about Muhammad being dictated the "Corrected Bible" as the Qur'an, and then flying off to heaven on a magical flying horse.

All of these religions are based on mythology, not on Deism. Thomas Pain was grossly wrong if he thought these religions are based on Deism.

They are based on mythology, not unlike Greek mythology at all. They describe anthropomorphic images of God. Even the Christian God is said to be "wrathful". We must fear this God's wrath! How does that equate to Deism?