-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Deists: Please explain why you are a deist and what attributes you put on god.
- Thread starter FreedByte
- Start date
- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,709
- 20,969
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
They may exist, and self-described deists do exist, but trying to link their beliefs to those of Deists in the past, to give Deists intellectual credence, is tenuous because Deists believed so many different things.
The reality of the world we live in? What does that mean? I'll tell you what, there's suffering in the world but also happiness. And sometimes strangely enough, the suffering in the world is transformed into happiness, particularly if we live in ways that are transformational and mindful. So it's hard to say the world is so bad that a benevolent deity could not exist, unless you simply dismiss the potential inherent in our existence as rational creatures with the freedom to choose our values.
If God is benevolent, why would he not be involved in the world in some way? No, I simply don't see Deism as plausible. Even existing as a moral influence, is involvement in this world. Existing as a judge of the afterlife, is involvement in this world. If God exists, he has to be relevant in a personal way to everything he creates. He has to be available. And this is possible for him to do, because he is God.
There are religions, BTW, that do not believe in a Creator in the classical Christian sense, but they do believe in a supreme being involved in the world. Certain forms of process theism (Unitarian and Christian), or certain Buddhist traditions (Jodo Shinshu), for instance. I find this much more plausible than suggesting that a benevolent supreme being created the universe, then abandoned it. Indeed, if this being is supposed to be reasonable, I just don't see why this is reasonable.
Upvote
0
How exactly did you learn this?
Your almost makes it sound like you gave them proof and they rejected it.
Upvote
0
No, sorry.
I believe in a God who sacrificed His life in Heaven to create Earth, but remains indifferent to whether or not He enjoys Heaven and therefore remains indifferent to what He created within the context of that personal relationship.
This is impossible if and only if you posit that he has no personal desire for His creation to be indifferent also (and thereby share that indifference with others in a personal way).
Upvote
0
Heard of the Zen remark "mu"?
You are creating an opposition which fails when the context is expressed as a continuum of possibility.
That you find someone pointing this out offensive, speaks of your unwillingness to do anything but trap people who answer your question.
Upvote
0
No, I'm putting them in a context which is a continuum of possibility.
You are pretending the opposition explains all known interactions between the pair, I have shown you that the explanation for their interaction exists outside the mechanic you present.
Is it that my answer requires you to have faith that you don't like? Or something else?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
