Christian Deism

[Vanguard PCD]

Are you saying that every person needs to cherry-pick a religion that makes the most sense to them and they are all equally valid?

No.

I am saying that finding true meaning with your own spirituality is a process, and not everyone fits into traditional molds with predefined beliefs.

 

[Albion]

According to you, maybe.

According to the meaning of the words.

Virgin birth is also an oxymoron, yet so many believe in it. That too, has already been stated.

No, it's not an oxymoron, but I think you're just saying that to be contrary.

A Deist by definition is one who believes that there is a God, but one who is confined to the laws of nature, who has no interest in the affairs of men, and certainly does not answer prayer or provide any life eternal to them.

In other words, the most characteristic AND ESSENTIAL beliefs of Christianity are all denied. All that could remain would be a regard for the man, Jesus of Nazareth, and that's usually as some exemplary teacher of ethics. There is hardly any student of religion who could consider that to be a variety of Christianity.

Unitarianism, which is close to Deism, is not considered to be a Christian denomination any more and it does not consider itself to be Christian, either.

So now you know.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

A Deist by definition is one who believes that there is a God, but one who is confined to the laws of nature, who has no interest in the affairs of men, and certainly does not answer prayer or provide any life eternal to them.

Incorrect.

A true deist does not confine God to the laws of nature. We recognize that God created the laws of nature and set everything in motion. He does not interfere with us because of our free will. And where do you get that we don't believe in an afterlife? Could you please point me to the "Official Deist Handbook..."

In other words, the most characteristic AND ESSENTIAL beliefs of Christianity are all denied.

Uh, no. I have already explained in the OP, my position. I am as much of a Christian as anyone else. Salvation is not dependant on believing the Bible to be 100% literal or whether or not God answers prayers.

 

[Targaryen]

Incorrect.

A true deist does not confine God to the laws of nature. We recognize that God created the laws of nature and set everything in motion. He does not interfere with us because of our free will. And where do you get that we don't believe in an afterlife? Could you please point me to the "Official Deist Handbook..."



Uh, no. I have already explained in the OP, my position. I am as much of a Christian as anyone else. Salvation is not dependant on believing the Bible to be 100% literal or whether or not God answers prayers.

You're either a Christian or a Deist, not both.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

You're either a Christian or a Deist, not both.

Once again, according to who? There are many facets of deism, just like there are many denominations of Christianity. I am whatever I claim, and no one will dictate to me what I can or cannot be.

 

[Targaryen]

Once again, according to who? There are many facets of deism, just like there are many denominations of Christianity. I am whatever I claim, and no one will dictate to me what I can or cannot be.

According to any orthodox Christian.

That's who...sorry you want play at dualism, but gnosticism already tried. That's part of the reason why gnosticism is heretical.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I think they are two different things, yet similar in many circumstances.

CD tends to look at the natural aspect of religion and the world around us. It is focused more on human reason and understanding in order to see God's miracles in creation. CD tend to be skeptical of "revealed" religions where a lone prophet claims to speak the word of God (or gods). CD is classified as a natural religion.

CH is more about serving and helping humanity. Humans are good, deserve life and all have basic needs that need to be met. It is more of a philosophy (like Buddhism), not a religion.

Both use Jesus as a mentor and strive to follow His teachings. Both have no problem with science explaining things. Both tend to disregard the supernatural.

It is possible to be a Christian Deist Humanist...if you are big on labels.

Thank you for your perspectives.

My response here is more about the topic in general as well as thoughts skimming the surface of my sleepy brain in regards to the thread..... Sorry in advance if it's not that organized or clear. It's late and I ramble when I'm tired.

Fundamentalists who want to promote a revisionary version of history perpetually claim the Founding Fathers of the United States who were Deists were actually Christians and insist the two are synonymous because it suits their agenda for them to be. One of my first experiences on this site was on a thread where this man passionately insisted Thomas Jefferson was a Christian Deist (which to him was on par with his own conservative Baptist beliefs) and engaged in a lengthy lock of horns with another poster over it. Some people put much more effort into winning a point than acquiring facts, knowledge, and understanding. I think Deism as it was followed by those leaders at that time was not Christianity because it denied the basic tenets of the Christian faith, which is that Jesus Christ was not merely a mortal man who had enlightened philosophies about ethics, but a divine deity, the son of God who was sent here to be our Savior. Until your OP I was under the impression that Christian Deism still disbelieved the divinity of Christ but revered his teachings and strived to emulate them, and believed on faith in God as the creator. The foundational qualification of a Christian religion is the acceptance of the divinity of Christ. Belief in God without belief in the deity of Christ is still religious in nature, but not Christianity. Conversely, to me, if a humanist accepts the divinity of Christ she's still on a branch of Christian faith even if more of the focus is on humanist principles. I went to an Ethical Culture (humanist) school when we lived in NYC, primarily because there was a lack of academically strong Christian schools there, and it appealed to my family that ECFS focuses on ethics that were parallel to Christ's teachings about how to treat others with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. So, I've kinda grown up in my own unlabeled brew of Protestant Christianity and humanism. I'm a member of a liberal-leaning Presbyterian church, so I simply picked that label since I had to pick one here.

Anyhoo. Personally, I'm not keen on labels. All denominations and philosophies have essentially been an amalgam of beliefs, many of which had previously been disparate and seemingly paradoxical but are made cohesive, congruent. I've been on a Kierkegaard kick lately, so what comes to mind is a quote about how once you label someone you negate them. I think it's true. Labels have clear definitions that form boundaries, and when they are affixed to people, it creates an expectation that the person's beliefs and characteristics will fit within the parameters of that label. It neutralizes the individuality of a person. Confusions and disagreements then sprout up when the identifying labels are the same on the front but have different lists of ingredients when examined. I do understand why they can be helpful at identifying matters and understanding them, but I think care has to be used when applying and when reading them on people and forming presumptions about them. That's especially true when it comes to labels relating to religion, I think. There's a myriad of interpretations of the Bible that lead to divergent meanings of it, so the understanding we're accustomed to or associate with a label might vary considerably. Mainly, I think we should focus more on what people do than what they say they are or what we think they are based on their labels. We have to explore, examine and contemplate beliefs and run them through the filters of our brains and our hearts to see if they make it into becoming who we are. We need to believe what we believe and reject what we don't and not make it any more or less complicated than that. I don't think we're meant to just believe what our parents believe or what the labels say to believe or what a political leader or writer or philosopher believed or how someone else believes religious doctrine should be believed. Besides, the ones who really challenge society and push forward progress are the ones who don't stay within the boxes of what they've been labeled. Jesus didn't wear the Christian label because it didn't exist then. He was Jewish, but of course today a Jewish Christian would be another disputed paradox. He just lived out his purpose.

Like I said, I babble like crazy when I'm tired..... Hope this makes some sort of sense.

 

[single eye]

Vanguard PCD, You say that "finding true meaning with your own spirituality is a process" is different than "cherry-pick a religion that makes the most sense". How are they different? Who gets to decide which are valid or not? What is the basis used to decide which position is valid or not?

 

[Albion]

Incorrect.

A true deist does not confine God to the laws of nature. We recognize that God created the laws of nature and set everything in motion. He does not interfere with us because of our free will.

Well, that's a novel twist, making God be restrained by our "free will." But that's not actually Deism. None the less, God does not involve himself in the affairs of men, according to Deism. Right there, you've removed everything but the shell from Christianity, rendering a term like "Christian Deism" meaningless.

Uh, no. I have already explained in the OP, my position. I am as much of a Christian as anyone else.

If so...and it's not my business to decide if you personally are a Christian or not...the term you have chosen to describe your POV was a poor one, that's all. What other ones might you consider??

Salvation is not dependant on believing the Bible to be 100% literal or whether or not God answers prayers.

I agree. But that doesn't change anything about any so-called "Christian Deism." What's more, I had not said anything about either of those issues being what makes Christianity what it is, so what do you think you're refuting?

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Well, that's a novel twist, making God be restrained by our "free will." But that's not actually Deism.

Yes it is. Deism believes that God does not get involved with the world, letting everything run according to the laws of nature that He created. Free will, which is a common belief in deism, just explains our view as to why He does not get involved with our affairs. It has nothing to do with restraint.

...and it's not my business to decide if you personally are a Christian or not...the term you have chosen to describe your POV was a poor one, that's all. What other ones might you consider??

Your biased opinion.

I don't need to consider anything else. I have described what I am and what I believe. You don't personally have to accept it, and you are entitled to your opinion and the right to disagree. However, your opinion does not matter to me. I could really care less what you think and whether you agree or not. Just saying...

Unless you have something copnstructive to add to the thread, other than bashing my "label," I am done with you here.

 

[Albion]

Yes it is. Deism believes that God does not get involved with the world, letting everything run according to the laws of nature that He created.

Exactly. It isn't activated by our "free will" or anything else we may do or not do.

Your biased opinion.

Is that the best you can do?

I don't need to consider anything else. I have described what I am and what I believe. You don't personally have to accept it, and you are entitled to your opinion and the right to disagree

.
That's right. What you are describing as Deism is something, it's just not actual Deism. I'm not arguing against anything in particular that you profess.

Since your mind is closed to anything I might say, even though I never was angry at you or impolite (never called you "biased" for instance), I will close now with the suggestion that you come up with a term that is more accurate and certainly not something that is both incorrect and self contradictory, like "Christian Deism."