Christian Deism

[Targaryen]

I have already explained how I am a Christian Deist. You can't wiki it to find out what it means. Deism is an umbrella term, and is not a specific religion or denomination. It is a philosophy.

No, it's horse hockey. Deism is not a concept compatible with Christianity, bar none. You are either one or the other or none of the above.

However, in an effort to appease the masses, to be a Christian means what? That you believe in Jesus Christ as the messiah, accept Him as your savior and follow His teachings. Everything else is just denomination specific dogma.

Again , horse hockey. most of your interpretations have been interpreted for thousands of years, before any sort of "Deism phiolosphy" came into being.

You're just someone that is confused but wants to be an expert.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

You're just someone that is confused but wants to be an expert.

I am confused because...?

 

[Defensor Christi]

We all read the "same" Bible (minus translation and copyright changes) yet there are 100s of denominations. Hmmm...

The problem isnt the Scriptures...its the interpretation of them.

 

[Albion]

I have often been asked what my personal beliefs are, both here and abroad. I am fully aware that some of the things that I say are not orthodox. Perhaps the following will give some insight as to how I think and where I am coming from...

It's just a snap judgment on my part, but I feel that it would be more accurate to describe yourself as holding to your own set of beliefs, not as a "Christian Deist," which is actually an oxymoron. And you certainly aren't a Deist if you believe in "salvation" for mortals. What's more, there are a number of well-known denominations which would see nothing special about welcoming you as a member based upon what you've written here.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

It's just a snap judgment on my part, but I feel that it would be more accurate to describe yourself as holding to your own set of beliefs, not as a "Christian Deist," which is actually an oxymoron. And you certainly aren't a Deist if you believe in "salvation" for mortals. What's more, there are a number of well-known denominations which would see nothing special about welcoming you as a member based upon what you've written here.

I am not a Classical Deist. Just like Christianity, there are different beliefs within deism. Some are Classical, modern, progressive or blend other elements.

Know what else is an oxymoron? Virgin birth. Not saying it did not happen, just that the two terms are contradictory.

 

[Albion]

I am not a Classical Deist.

'
That's right. I can see why you'd be looking for a term that's more reflective of your beliefs.

Know what else is an oxymoron? Virgin birth. Not saying it did not happen, just that the two terms are contradictory.

I couldn't agree to that. It is indeed possible to have a virgin conceive, even if it's almost shocking to say the two words together. And then to give birth. We even do it by artificial insemination these days. But if you then turn to the idea of Mary as "ever virgin" you've got a point.

 

[AceHero]

Incidentally, for those living in the USA, do you realize that several of the Founding Fathers were deists, either by proclamation or their views on religion? That list would include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Thomas Paine.

Other famous deists would include Leonardo da Vinci, Mark Twain, Neil Armstrong, Thomas Edison, and Wernher von Braun.

Deism as a whole grew at a rate of 717% in the US, from 1990 to 2001. It still grows to this day. People are starting to open their eyes and think for themselves.

I have many of the same feelings as you do about the Christian faith. I see the New Testament as Christ's teachings and the Old Testament as filled with His foretelling, along with a lot of rich literature that may or may not have happened, but is important regardless.

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist and see Genesis as largely allegorical, but again, still very important.

Based on your OP, I could call myself a Deist, or Christian Deist, as well. I prefer Christian Mystic but know that it's just a label like any other that people use to define--and often confine--their beliefs.

I like that term. What exactly is your definition of Christian Mystic?

 

[Soma Seer]

I like that term. What exactly is your definition of Christian Mystic?

So as to not take this thread off-topic, I will send you a PM.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

"the bible is not inerrant" true, but scripture is. The problem was not with the human authors, it was with the people who selected the books of the bible. They combined some scripture with a lot of non-scripture.

I missed this post early on...

You are right about the people that selected the books of the Bible. Many think this was done at the Council of Nicaea, but that is incorrect. The "Bible" developed over several centuries, with much bickering about what was to be considered canon and what was not. The Eastern churches did not agree with the Book of Revelation being included as canon (many still hold to that idea). Protestants and Catholics to this day, do not agree on the Apocrypha.

No definitve group or person decided on the books of the Bible. It sort of worked itself out, but not without dissention. What is "biblical" depends on who you ask.

This is why I see the Bible as allegory and metaphorical. The stories have a lesson to be learned from them, or they are simply primitive man trying to explain the world around them. I firmly believe I am "saved" and will pass judgment, but my salvation is not dependant on whether I believe Jonah and the Whale is true or not.

 

[AceHero]

You are right about the people that selected the books of the Bible. Many think this was done at the Council of Nicaea, but that is incorrect. The "Bible" developed over several centuries, with much bickering about what was to be considered canon and what was not. The Eastern churches did not agree with the Book of Revelation being included as canon (many still hold to that idea). Protestants and Catholics to this day, do not agree on the Apocrypha.

It's been awhile since my first theology course in college, but it'd be interesting to figure out exactly why those particular 66 books were placed in the Bible. Obviously the Old Testament's placement makes sense, but the formation of the New Testament seemed really up for grabs outside of the Gospels.

It's kind of ironic that the Protestants tend to be more strict than the Catholics when it comes to the "legitimate" books of the Bible (at least concerning the Apocrypha).

 

[Vanguard PCD]

It's been awhile since my first theology course in college, but it'd be interesting to figure out exactly why those particular 66 books were placed in the Bible. Obviously the Old Testament's placement makes sense, but the formation of the New Testament seemed really up for grabs outside of the Gospels.

It's kind of ironic that the Protestants tend to be more strict than the Catholics when it comes to the "legitimate" books of the Bible (at least concerning the Apocrypha).

It was not 66 until after the Protestant Reformation and the Church of England started dropping the Apocrypha from the KJV. Prior to that bibles included the extra books...as did the 1611 KJV.

 

[single eye]

There are two enormous problems with your theory. There are five possible groups of writings to consider as to which are scripture, the o.t., Paul & his followers in n.t., the saints in n.t., books of the apocrypha, and the gnostic gospels in the nag hmmadi library. How did you determine which of these five groups was scripture and which were not? Second, trying to understand symbolic analogies as allegories or metaphors is useless.

 

[Albion]

It was not 66 until after the Protestant Reformation and the Church of England started dropping the Apocrypha from the KJV. Prior to that bibles included the extra books...as did the 1611 KJV.

The Apocrypha wasn't first dropped by the Anglican church. Other Protestants had made that decision previously and, as you probably know, the Roman church itself dropped part of the Apocrypha in that same century.

And, as for the "KJV," the Apocrypha wasn't "dropped" from copies of the Bible until the 1800s. As a matter of fact, you could say these books have never been dropped since they are appointed to be read in the church and the Articles of Religion describe them as important to read for instruction in morals and manners.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

The Apocrypha wasn't first dropped by the Anglican church. Other Protestants had made that decision previously and, as you probably know, the Roman church itself dropped part of the Apocrypha in that same century.

And, as for the "KJV," the Apocrypha wasn't "dropped" from copies of the Bible until the 1800s. As a matter of fact, you could say these books have never been dropped since they are appointed to be read in the church and the Articles of Religion describe them as important to read for instruction in morals and manners.

It was the Church of England and the Protestant Reformation that was largely responsible for those happenings in the 16th and 17th centuries. They wanted to distance themselves from the RCC.

All KJV prior to 1666 included the Apocrypha. It was after that date that publishers/printers started leaving it out. Not that any of this really matters as I don't use the KJV.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

How would you compare and contrast Christian Deism to Christian Humanism?

 

[Vanguard PCD]

How would you compare and contrast Christian Deism to Christian Humanism?

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.

 

[Albion]

It was the Church of England and the Protestant Reformation that was largely responsible for those happenings in the 16th and 17th centuries. They wanted to distance themselves from the RCC.

Martin Luther will be very unhappy to hear that. He's usually considered to be the one who inaugurated the Reformation, you know, and it was Lutherans who removed the Apocrypha from the Bible (rightly, of course). At the time of Luther's death, England was still Catholic in belief and practice, although separated from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

All KJV prior to 1666 included the Apocrypha. It was after that date that publishers/printers started leaving it out.

Much later, in fact.

 

[single eye]

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?

 

[Albion]

How would you compare and contrast Christian Deism to Christian Humanism?

Christian Deism is a myth. The two words contradict and exclude each other. The term is an oxymoron. Christian Humanism (as opposed to Secular Humanism) has an important place in history, however.

 

[Vanguard PCD]

Christian Deism is a myth.

According to you, maybe.

The two words contradict and exclude each other. The term is an oxymoron.

You've already stated that, just as I have already explained why and how the terms can go together, based on one's beliefs. Virgin birth is also an oxymoron, yet so many believe in it. That too, has already been stated.