If Christianity didn't make pretty promises...

[Justin108]

If Christianity didn't promise heaven, threaten hell, and claim the creator of the Universe had your back, would Christianity have any followers at all?

[Justin108]

As I have said before, Dictionary definitions don't always work.

I am a Deist but claim God does intervene in the world if and when he wants to BUT I don't support or follow any organised religion. That is not to say that certain individuals who call themselves theists or do call themselves eg Christian, have to support and agree to ALL the tenants of that faith. Indeed most probably don't.

Four questions:

- How do you define deism?
- How do you define theism?
- Why do you choose these definitions?
- In what way does your belief not fit the definition of theism?

So I'm a Deist PLUS and the dictionary therefore needs updating...

I'm a vegetarian who likes bacon. Therefore, the dictionary needs updating

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Your fear itself has nothing to do with what truth is. You are applying the fallacy here that "because you are feared such that no truth can exist in those claims".

[Elijah John]

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.

No this is a theistic baseline. What does Jesus' teachings have to do with deism? Take away Jesus' moral teachings and I would agree on a deistic baseline. Do you believe in heaven? Then you are not a deist. Do you believe God communicates with man? Then you are not a deist. Do you believe God rewards good and punishes evil? Then you are not a deist.

A deist separates God from organized religion. A deistic baseline is simply "there is a god". That is where deism stops. The moment you add characteristics to this god, claim an afterlife or claim that this god has anything to do with a specific religion, it stops being deistic. Deism is god minus religion.

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

And the moment they did this, it stopped being deism and becomes theism



deism
ˈdeɪɪz(ə)m,ˈdi�ɪ-/Submit
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

theism
ˈθi�ɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

Seems to me you are either ignoring or rejecting the quote I gave you from Thomas Paine, that Deism is the first, the basic article in EVERY religon...(at least most, the Theistic ones.)

And you seem to be ignoring or rejecting Paine's definition as well, which is the one I go by.

So be it, then call me a "basic Theist" of you like.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 26 by Peds nurse]

Hamsaka wrote:
It's the Christians who run around condemning the 'unsaved' and telling deliberate untruths to further whatever agenda (usually political), be it anti-LGBT, anti-climate change, and draw up aggressive strategies to insert Creationism into public school science curriculums. They are dealing dishonestly for power and influence over people who don't share their beliefs. They don't set examples that non-believers want to follow. They are enforcers, and use the Hell threats to intimidate, undermine and scare the dickens out of people who don't know any better. They are the ones that make the Christian God look like an abusive spouse, who punishes you 'because I love you'. Because they are on the news so often spouting religio-political rhetoric, a person could conclude they ARE the Christians, and they give the whole group a bad name.

Unfortunately, there are people in every arena, who are in it for themselves.

This is where I get fascinated. What you just said rings true, if for no other reason than that humans are naturally self-centered, some much more than others. The years I spent as a psych nurse (almost 17) showed me the gamut, and those with a heavy 'burden' of self-preoccupation were the least capable of coping with the demands of family, work and community life. And . . . inevitably, they resorted to threats and force to 'get their way' in all areas of interaction. I could go on for pages with the ruminations I've had.

Plenty of them called themselves Christians, and their 'god' was pretty much their own savage, demanding and petty self. People with a certain temperament orient toward the fire-and-brimstone fringe of Christianity. An authoritarian 'king of his own house' isn't the type to gravitate toward Universalist congregations, you know? He/she is going to feel MUCH more comfortable where he/she can continue to freely express contempt for 'them' while cozying up to their bully-God.

The lasting damage that is created, sorrows my heart greatly. It is sad that some churches in America, have steered away from love, and replaced it with judgement. They adhere to some sort of behavior modification program, in which resistance is met with harsh criticism. This is why people are never the standard to which Christ calls us, because we often times go off on self directed tangents.

They are too burdened with self-preoccupation to even grasp a power greater than their own personal demands. Instead, they identify with it. They 'become' that judging god themselves, and 'worship' their own displays of power over others. They are the ones who seem to relish notifying people they are Hellbound. I have to wonder if they realize how they come across. Then I remember they don't think about anyone but Number One, so why would they care?

Even though they are a minority and 'fringe' to general Christianity, they are awfully loud and demand a lot of attention. The media is quick to stick a camera in their face for the purposes of both entertaining the horrified public and encouraging their antics for future sound bytes and clips . One might get the impression these loud mouths are THE Christians. It is just not ratings-worthy to stick a camera in the face of the gently devout humanitarian Christian, who is more likely to avoid the camera in the first place .

[Justin108]

Seems to me you are either ignoring or rejecting the quote I gave you from Thomas Paine, that Deism is the first, the basic article in EVERY religon...(at least most, the Theistic ones.)

And you seem to be ignoring or rejecting Paine's definition as well, which is the one I go by.

I do reject it. One man cannot redefine a term.

Tell me...what exactly makes you a deist and not a theist? What key difference seperates the two?

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Fear is a powerful tool, and people have long been affected by it, whether they wield it, or are the recipients of it. Fear is the engine that powers religion...fear of death for say Islam and their many unwilling forced converts, or fear of eternity in hell by christian converts....it all comes down to fear...and some other great sales tactics and social engineering concepts.

[beeswax]

If its all the same to you, I prefer to use my own definition of my belief...And even if its not OK with you..

To 'me' theism is a belief in God via organised religious concepts and precepts based mainly on religious text. And if you are a vegetarian that likes bacon then you define it how YOU want to..

New words are being created all the time and dictionaries are updated regularly to include them. My wife is a sort of expert in dictionary definitions and their root names and when they were first created and I may ask her what I am...But as she has told me often enough, maybe I won't!

[Justin108]

If its all the same to you, I prefer to use my own definition of my belief...And even if its not OK with you..

And if you are a vegetarian that likes bacon then you define it how YOU want to..

Yes. To hell with the English language. Words can now mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.

New words are being created all the time and dictionaries are updated regularly to include them.

This is normally due to large-scale divergence, not individual desires to redefine words. I am not quite familiar with your own beliefs, but Elijah's beliefs are clearly influenced by scripture. His belief in a god that punishes the bad and rewards the good and gave Moses the 10 Commandments clearly demonstrate that his belief is not one of pure reason but of faith. The moment you mix god with any particular religion, it is no longer deism.

Why do you insist on highjacking the word? Why do you need to redefine an existing word in order for it to fit your belief? All this does is confuse matters. I see no point in doing so. Do you merely like the sound of "deism"? Do you like its reputation?

[beeswax]

Post 38: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:20 pm
beeswax wrote:

If its all the same to you, I prefer to use my own definition of my belief...And even if its not OK with you..

And if you are a vegetarian that likes bacon then you define it how YOU want to..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Justin108

Yes. To hell with the English language. Words can now mean whatever anyone wants them to mean
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's being silly, if I may say so..

Words CAN be interpreted or MIS interpreted the whole time and that goes on all the time with words now and definitely in the ancient world and bible text.

The point is really is what 'I' mean by a word and then to clarify what 'I' mean by using that word. So what if the dictionary definition doesn't deal with each and every meaning? So what?

Do try and be sensible sometimes mate...

[Justin108]

Words CAN be interpreted or MIS interpreted the whole time and that goes on all the time with words now and definitely in the ancient world and bible text.

If one continues to misinterpret words after having been given the proper meaning and definition of the word by credible sources then you are being willfully ignorant.

The point is really is what 'I' mean by a word and then to clarify what 'I' mean by using that word.

Why use that word when that word does not conform to what you believe? If you need to redefine the word in order for it to conform to your belief then you might as well use any word, redefine it, and call yourself that.

I don't even have that big of a gripe with your philosophy. From what I can tell, based on this http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28828, you are pretty much a deist. My issue is with Elijah John who calls himself a deist, but goes on to say that God influenced the 10 Commandments. Your philosophy fits deism. His doesn't.

So what if the dictionary definition doesn't deal with each and every meaning? So what?

I agree. But there are limits. Elijah John oversteps those limits

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28829