Is this a plausible Christian view?

[Hakan101]

"God created the universe in such a way that life formed from matter on its own without His direct intervention. When it comes to the natural world, He was only there to create the beginning and nothing more. Also, this universe is so vastly huge that I would be concerned if God created life only once, on this remote little rock we call earth, and not on other planets as well. I believe we were not the first planet to have life, but it was 'our turn.' When Jesus returns, we will all become a single organism together, in perfect harmony with ourselves, the universe, and God."

 

[Steve Petersen]

"God created the universe in such a way that life formed from matter on its own without His direct intervention. When it comes to the natural world, He was only there to create the beginning and nothing more.

This much seems reasonable. The rest, not so much.

The Bible doesn't give the 'how' of creation, but the 'who.'

 

[lesliedellow]

There is no need for an omnipotent God to be constantly intervening, once the thing he had purposed to himself had been set in motion.

That does not mean, of course, that he has no care for the world, or that he does not interact with his sentient creatures. To suppose that would be deism.

 

[hedrick]

"God created the universe in such a way that life formed from matter on its own without His direct intervention. When it comes to the natural world, He was only there to create the beginning and nothing more. Also, this universe is so vastly huge that I would be concerned if God created life only once, on this remote little rock we call earth, and not on other planets as well. I believe we were not the first planet to have life, but it was 'our turn.' When Jesus returns, we will all become a single organism together, in perfect harmony with ourselves, the universe, and God."

Partially. In my view, it's reasonable to say that life arose though natural processes, and didn't require God to stick his hand in and muck with them.

However there are same dangers:

* one poster mentioned deism. Christianity is based on the concept of God actually interacting with his people, both through the history of Israel and though Christ. Saying that God started things and hasn't done anything since isn't Christianity, since at the very least Christianity asserts that God used Christ as a way to participate in our history.

* I don't see any issue with life on multiple planets. However "single organism?" Sounds a bit new age for me. There's a basic concept of Christianity that we were created "in God's image." I'd say that means that we are responsible individuals. Eternal life may be quite different, but for individuality to vanish (which seems to be what "one organism" says) is more appropriate for Eastern religions than Christianity.

 

[BL2KTN]

Traditional and modern deism posit that the Creator of the cosmos mostly has nothing to do with us. That doesn't jive real well with Jesus/Yeshua being that Creator and stopping down here on Earth for a while.

There are Christian deists out there who mix the two. I think their position is that the bible isn't scripture, but beyond that I'm not sure they have a singular belief system (very, very, very few people would describe themselves in this way, and they wouldn't share the same beliefs).

 

[Paradoxum]

It's totally Christian to think God let life happen naturally. I'd say that's a better Christian theology.

Since when is deism against Christianity?

Because Christians believe in a personal God/ Christ.

I don't think the OP meant deism though. I assume he means God creates the universe, then lets nature take it's course. That doesn't mean God can't interact after that though.

 

[Hakan101]

Thank you for the replies. I guess the person I was talking to was a Christian Deist from what you've all said. Kind of a weird way to view things in my opinion. They believe in evolution, that God did not create life himself but created matter that formed into the first primordial soup, they implied that the Bible does not hold as much significance or truth as most Christians think it does, yet they believed Jesus was God and that he is going to return.

 

[Received]

"God created the universe in such a way that life formed from matter on its own without His direct intervention. When it comes to the natural world, He was only there to create the beginning and nothing more. Also, this universe is so vastly huge that I would be concerned if God created life only once, on this remote little rock we call earth, and not on other planets as well. I believe we were not the first planet to have life, but it was 'our turn.' When Jesus returns, we will all become a single organism together, in perfect harmony with ourselves, the universe, and God."

Sure, totally legit, theistic semi-naturalistic evolution. Catholic writer Kenneth Miller holds this stance.

Of course, in addition to shying away from God in the gaps by assuming that God did stuff that science can't explain particular circumstances, we shouldn't commit the opposite fallacy, God definitely not in the gaps, by assuming that there is no room for God's hand in evolution, e.g., with the Cambrian Explosion or (what I lean towards) where replicators come from.

 

[hedrick]

Thank you for the replies. I guess the person I was talking to was a Christian Deist from what you've all said. Kind of a weird way to view things in my opinion. They believe in evolution, that God did not create life himself but created matter that formed into the first primordial soup, they implied that the Bible does not hold as much significance or truth as most Christians think it does, yet they believed Jesus was God and that he is going to return.

It would be unusual for a deist to believe that Christ is God and is going to return. That suggests that God is involved in history in a way that differs from classical deism.

My understanding of Christian deism (supported by Wikipedia) is that it believes in following Jesus as a teacher, but doesn't see him as representing an intervention by God into our history.

It sounds like your friend might be more a liberal Christian than a deist, though we'd need to know more specifics to judge.

 

[Hakan101]

It would be unusual for a deist to believe that Christ is God and is going to return. That suggests that God is involved in history in a way that differs from classical deism.

My understanding of Christian deism (supported by Wikipedia) is that it believes in following Jesus as a teacher, but doesn't see him as representing an intervention by God into our history.

It sounds like your friend might be more a liberal Christian than a deist, though we'd need to know more specifics to judge.

He says he is Christian but not a fundamentalist Christian and doesn't think the Bible is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"...whatever that means.

 

[hedrick]

He says he is Christian but not a fundamentalist Christian and doesn't think the Bible is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"...whatever that means.

Hard to say. I'd be inclined to take him at his word that's he a Christian and assume he's a liberal Christian of some sort.

Views of Scripture vary among mainline and liberal Christians. I think the Bible is a human book, but that it reflects encounters between God and Israel. I use reflect because different books are different, varying from the prehistoric traditional material such as Genesis to more historical material from later, prophecy, poetry, etc. But I think that what's behind it is God calling a people and working with them.

The more radical end of liberal Christianity sees it as reflecting less activity by God, and more human tradition, though all liberal Christians I know (pretty much by definition) do think that Jesus represents God in some way.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's normatively Christian to believe that God has established the natural laws and processes that make the universe function--including the natural evolution of life.

It becomes more difficult to say that God simply wound up the clock and let it run on its own; which tends to ignore that God is immanently acting and concerned.

The last part sounded too monistic for my tastes. The Christian hope is that God is renewing and restoring the entire cosmos though, and that at the consummation of all things at Christ's Parousia means the total renewal and restoration of all things. There is indeed a true union of man and God in the end, but not in a monistic sense. Rather it is in that man, in union with Christ by grace shares in the Divine Nature, what is classically called Theosis: "That what God is by nature man shall be by grace", or as St. Athanasius wrote in On the Incarnation, "[God] became man so that man might become God"; not in that there is a confusion between the creature and the Creator, but rather that we shall share in and participate in the full, perfect intimacy of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BL2KTN]

Thank you for the replies. I guess the person I was talking to was a Christian Deist from what you've all said. Kind of a weird way to view things in my opinion. They believe in evolution, that God did not create life himself but created matter that formed into the first primordial soup, they implied that the Bible does not hold as much significance or truth as most Christians think it does, yet they believed Jesus was God and that he is going to return.

Some people call me a Christian Deist because I think Yeshua/Jesus is recorded making my modus operandi: love God and love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that I think Yeshua is the creator, it just means that I follow that teaching, which he reportedly felt accounted for the most important commandments. I'm more comfortable with just the title "deist," but it does make it easier to not be treated unfairly by Christians (and yes, they can discriminate like mad) if you go the hybrid route.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, I don't think that view is compatible with Christianity.

 

[simplegospel1144]

God created with His word, the spoken word, and it happened. God breathed into dirt His spirit and it became alive, a man.

 

[bhsmte]

He says he is Christian but not a fundamentalist Christian and doesn't think the Bible is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"...whatever that means.

It sounds as though your friend is trying to reconcile many of the realities of the world; science, suffering etc., with his Christianity. When this happens, the beliefs have to adapt to the realities and I would think there are many that are in this same boat. Likely, why Christianity in general has been declining in the United States and the non-denominational churches that don't preach traditional dogma has been growing.

 

[Paradoxum]

Thank you for the replies. I guess the person I was talking to was a Christian Deist from what you've all said. Kind of a weird way to view things in my opinion. They believe in evolution, that God did not create life himself but created matter that formed into the first primordial soup, they implied that the Bible does not hold as much significance or truth as most Christians think it does, yet they believed Jesus was God and that he is going to return.

If the person you talked to thought life happened naturally, but that God still interacts with people now, then they aren't deist.

If they believe Jesus was God, then they aren't a deist.

Everyone on here who said the quote was deist has jumped to conclusions, or they don't know what 'deist' means.

 

[Hakan101]

If the person you talked to thought life happened naturally, but that God still interacts with people now, then they aren't deist.

If they believe Jesus was God, then they aren't a deist.

Everyone on here who said the quote was deist has jumped to conclusions, or they don't know what 'deist' means.

Honestly it seems he just has a jumble of beliefs. Cause yeah, he's not exactly a deist but he holds these theories that are more appropriate for deism than the Christian God specifically. He said he believes creation is imperfect if "God had to intervene", yet clearly we have records in the Bible of God intervening on earth, naturally or through prophets. He doesn't believe in the flood but the Bible explicitly states the flood as an actual event. But then again, he doesn't even hold the Bible as being all true, which in my opinion if you're going to do that how can you be a Christian? So that's why I said Christian Deist, it's just a weird mishmash of beliefs and I'm not quite sure why he has them.

 

[bhsmte]

Honestly it seems he just has a jumble of beliefs. Cause yeah, he's not exactly a deist but he holds these theories that are more appropriate for deism than the Christian God specifically. He said he believes creation is imperfect if "God had to intervene", yet clearly we have records in the Bible of God intervening on earth, naturally or through prophets. He doesn't believe in the flood but the Bible explicitly states the flood as an actual event. But then again, he doesn't even hold the Bible as being all true, which in my opinion if you're going to do that how can you be a Christian? So that's why I said Christian Deist, it's just a weird mishmash of beliefs and I'm not quite sure why he has them.

Very few Christians hold the bible as being completely true. Only fundamentalists, would hold to this belief and they are the minority of Christians.

With the majority of Christians agreeing with the TOE, that is already a huge chunk of Christians, who toss out Genesis as being accurate, on only this one topic.

 

[Hakan101]

Very few Christians hold the bible as being completely true. Only fundamentalists, would hold to this belief and they are the minority of Christians.

With the majority of Christians agreeing with the TOE, that is already a huge chunk of Christians, who toss out Genesis as being accurate, on only this one topic.

Do you have any statistics on this? Everything I find states the exact opposite.