C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I actually agree with this, it seems to me deist see there is not a personal god, yet they can’t let go of religion.
- Status
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
It seems to me that if it is the case that God does not interfere, or if he takes a hands off approach, then it doesn’t make any difference if you believe in God or not. It doesn’t make any practical difference to us whether he exists or not.
So, if Deism is right, why bother?
G
geekborj
Guest
Based on a wikipedia entry,
In a Catholic sense, this is an incomplete truth. Deists seems to ignore the fact that there are “axioms” or “principles” in the Universe and even within Reason that cannot be proven within itself. Deism, IMHO, seems to be almost equivalent to Materialism that rejects the other dimensions of life, except in a belief in a God. It appears to me therefore that Deism is in fact a perpetuation of the Original Sin – the rejection of God’s role in the life of Man and the Universe God created for him, just because of Pride.
Catholics believe that God chose to reveal Himself both in the majestic design of the Universe and in his divine salvation plan. The Catholic Church is more than “organized religion,” it is the body of Christ animated by His Spirit, the Holy Spirit. It is like God living among men.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Does anyone believe in salvation? Most, even the ant will look for liberation from suffering.
God cannot be the cause of moral defect, He is Infinite Perfection.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
God having created the world continuously preserves it. Give something a shove, it will only travel as far as the initial exertion permits. To be in continuous motion is suggestive of continuous impact (Our co-operation in Divine Grace working through Divine Providence)
Do deists believe in salvation? Sentient beings believe in the existence of a self which needs liberation from dissatisfaction.
Do deists believe in an afterlife? Depends on what you mean by ‘afterlife’. If they cling to the belief in the existence of a self, and protect this self it is hard for me to believe they would not want to see it continue.
G
getgene
Guest
The title of this thread is directed to confirming a conclusion, not questioning an idea.
To say it is “wrong” makes no sense. It is a philosophical position, not a religion or set of rules. Is it wrong in that is accepts the existence of God and that our gift is the ability to use reason?
The entries indicate no one knows what a Deist is, so why are you giving your opinion? It is not enough to decide upon a conclusion that makes you feel better, then find a reason to justify it.
Yes, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Ethan Allen (the rogue) and a host of others were Deists. Our Constitution specifically incorporates a Deist view that reason is God’s gift and it is through that, not the dictates of a church-government, people can govern themselves in a civilized and rational way. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. Is the Constitution “wrong.”
As to Washington, he was a Deist, contrary to another conclusion offered:
In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, “Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world.”
Deists insist upon personal responsibility to discern the correct nature of God and how to live properly. I can see how a complacent serf would rather be told what to do. Indeed, some people want a government to tell them how to think and what to do. The lure of the primitive is strong.
If you believe in the separation of church from state, you believe in a Deist principle. It is a rational reaction to the insanity of European history. Where do you think it came from?
To say it is “wrong” makes no sense. It is a philosophical position, not a religion or set of rules. Is it wrong in that is accepts the existence of God and that our gift is the ability to use reason?
The entries indicate no one knows what a Deist is, so why are you giving your opinion? It is not enough to decide upon a conclusion that makes you feel better, then find a reason to justify it.
Yes, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Ethan Allen (the rogue) and a host of others were Deists. Our Constitution specifically incorporates a Deist view that reason is God’s gift and it is through that, not the dictates of a church-government, people can govern themselves in a civilized and rational way. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. Is the Constitution “wrong.”
As to Washington, he was a Deist, contrary to another conclusion offered:
In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, “Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world.”
Deists insist upon personal responsibility to discern the correct nature of God and how to live properly. I can see how a complacent serf would rather be told what to do. Indeed, some people want a government to tell them how to think and what to do. The lure of the primitive is strong.
If you believe in the separation of church from state, you believe in a Deist principle. It is a rational reaction to the insanity of European history. Where do you think it came from?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Christianity was the first religion to espouse separation of Church and State. Jesus is often quoted as saying render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. Jesus was radical in proposing that religion could be practiced outside of, or independent of the state.
The establishment of the Christian religion by Imperial Rome in the 4th century blunted that teaching. But in the aftermath of the American and French Revolutions, it has once again gained currency. But Deists were just another type of non-conformist in England where the Anglican religion was established. Therefore they recaptured, reinvigorated or restored the ancient Christian belief in separation of Church and State in rejection of the erastianism which gripped England. Erastianism subjects the Church to the State. The political powers can then use Church arguments and rationalizations to further political objectives. This is what the Deists opposed so vehemently. (but so did the oppressed Catholics of that era
)Even in the old Catholic Europe of the middle ages, the Church was deemed not only independent of the state, but superior to it. So all through Church history, the Church always considered herself independent of and superior to the state. It’s still true today
G
geekborj
Guest
While this makes sense at some point, it incorporates a platonic/socratic notion of motion. That an object pushed will eventually stop. Hence, a continuous motion should suggest a continuous application of force (“impact”). HOWEVER, this is not true.
According to the Law of Inertia, any object in motion will remain so in straight line at constant speed as long as no external force is applied to it. Hence, being in motion does not actually needs an external force.
I think the essence of the argument is this: God placed all the physical laws in effect and it is He that wills that these laws are still effective. By saying “let there be…” during creation, God allowed his creative Word to become the working principle of the whole Creation [cf Ps 89:12; Ps 104 (NAB)].
The problem with Deists is that they stop short at the belief of a God. But not apply the belief in daily life. Indeed, if this is the case, we become passive believers never accepting the responsibility of expressing the Faith by doing what is right.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
No, Deists believe in an Almighty God of Creation. They also believe in a moral order which is based on the order of creation. What they don’t believe in is revealed religions. Revealed religions are those which say they have God’s words or prophets or teachers. That means all of the Major religions of the world.
They don’t believe God communicates to us through messengers, or Scriptures or anything other than creation.
B
brb2
Guest
You promote Bill Maher type dogma.
B
brb2
Guest
Did he renounce Freemasonry ?
G
getgene
Guest
Hi again.
I noted a little while ago that our founding fathers, as Deists, promoted the separation of church from state. The response was intriguing and I think shows the power of perspective.
AmbroseSJ,I believe it was, pointed out the Christ is reported to have said “Give unto Caesar…” etc as a demonstration that the separation of powers started there, it is a Catholic thing, so my team takes credit and bursts your bubble.
Then we learn that the church really considers itself separate and superior to Caesar. Can you appreciate the different spin, here? There is a distortion afoot meant to lead us to another comfy conclusion; consistency be damned. We move on from taking credit for the separation of church from state to hear the church is really better and independent. You see this in our government, different positions for different arguments that don’t agree with one another.
Of course, the proposition is not true. Self-delusion is a real problem.
The separation we have today is an imposition of a philosophy, one promoted by Deists, that we will be better off if we just take care of cleaning the streets without bothering with a religious paradigm (as opposed to moral one,) which is sort of a render unto Caesar perspective. This philosophical position, indeed, is a reaction to historical Europe where there was no separation, only despots who tried to use the church, and a church, as we learn, that deigned to deal with the inferior despots. The result was a bloody dance to the strains of the music of power. I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
European history is not rendering unto Caesar at all. Cardinal Richelieu was the King’s First Minister and Cromwell was a soldier, statesman who took some time, as he could, to kill Catholics. Thomas More is now called “saint.” I fail to see any separation. The whole Henry VIII soap opera tainted all of Europe, even down to William Shakespear, who had to hide his Catholic strains. Europe was a battle between those desiring a theocracy and those wanting to retain gang control while using religion. This is not dissimilar from the Arab countries, today.
The Christ’s followers ought to understand him from time to time, not just quote him.
Perspective is all. I submit much of the back and forth, here and everywhere, comes from not appreciating perspective and language. We have given up, as a culture, defining what we are talking about. We just argue conclusions, premises be damned. We want a conclusion, so we make up all manner of intellectual puffery to arrive there. On reflection, I guess this is not a new problem. History continues with the extant view: if are not wearing the colors of my gang, my religion, well, we can just kill you if you don’t shut up.
The thread continues with comments and questions about Deism, yet the question posited is “Are they wrong?”
FIrst, one should know what they believed and did, not what one does not like about some aspect or other. Then, reason, that is noted as a gift, can be used to talk about the powerful philosophical school. (It was not a religion. but since it hit “religions” with a paper in the snout, it is perceived as an enemy religion by the wounded.)
The point was made in the thread that we have reason; it is God’s or nature’s directive that we use it. So, let us conspire to use it, as would the Deists, to avoid tyranny from all quarters.
As to what is wrong or right? What is the criteria? How could Deists be wrong?
Are they incorrect (or is wrong a moral condition) because their view was God started things going, gave us reason and the ability to discern Him? That they believed we should each take responsibility for leading a good life based on thought and study? That a government must leave people alone in matters of faith? What are we talking about?
The Catholic church already understands that “facts” reported in the Bible are not scientific or historical “facts” as we understand them, so you can’t “believe” in those items with a straight face. Are Deists “wrong” because they consider the Bible, I think it is fair to say they still exist in some form, rather than absorb as true stories and poetic references? What is it you want from them?
What do you “believe?”
I noted a little while ago that our founding fathers, as Deists, promoted the separation of church from state. The response was intriguing and I think shows the power of perspective.
AmbroseSJ,I believe it was, pointed out the Christ is reported to have said “Give unto Caesar…” etc as a demonstration that the separation of powers started there, it is a Catholic thing, so my team takes credit and bursts your bubble.
Then we learn that the church really considers itself separate and superior to Caesar. Can you appreciate the different spin, here? There is a distortion afoot meant to lead us to another comfy conclusion; consistency be damned. We move on from taking credit for the separation of church from state to hear the church is really better and independent. You see this in our government, different positions for different arguments that don’t agree with one another.
Of course, the proposition is not true. Self-delusion is a real problem.
The separation we have today is an imposition of a philosophy, one promoted by Deists, that we will be better off if we just take care of cleaning the streets without bothering with a religious paradigm (as opposed to moral one,) which is sort of a render unto Caesar perspective. This philosophical position, indeed, is a reaction to historical Europe where there was no separation, only despots who tried to use the church, and a church, as we learn, that deigned to deal with the inferior despots. The result was a bloody dance to the strains of the music of power. I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
European history is not rendering unto Caesar at all. Cardinal Richelieu was the King’s First Minister and Cromwell was a soldier, statesman who took some time, as he could, to kill Catholics. Thomas More is now called “saint.” I fail to see any separation. The whole Henry VIII soap opera tainted all of Europe, even down to William Shakespear, who had to hide his Catholic strains. Europe was a battle between those desiring a theocracy and those wanting to retain gang control while using religion. This is not dissimilar from the Arab countries, today.
The Christ’s followers ought to understand him from time to time, not just quote him.
Perspective is all. I submit much of the back and forth, here and everywhere, comes from not appreciating perspective and language. We have given up, as a culture, defining what we are talking about. We just argue conclusions, premises be damned. We want a conclusion, so we make up all manner of intellectual puffery to arrive there. On reflection, I guess this is not a new problem. History continues with the extant view: if are not wearing the colors of my gang, my religion, well, we can just kill you if you don’t shut up.
The thread continues with comments and questions about Deism, yet the question posited is “Are they wrong?”
FIrst, one should know what they believed and did, not what one does not like about some aspect or other. Then, reason, that is noted as a gift, can be used to talk about the powerful philosophical school. (It was not a religion. but since it hit “religions” with a paper in the snout, it is perceived as an enemy religion by the wounded.)
The point was made in the thread that we have reason; it is God’s or nature’s directive that we use it. So, let us conspire to use it, as would the Deists, to avoid tyranny from all quarters.
As to what is wrong or right? What is the criteria? How could Deists be wrong?
Are they incorrect (or is wrong a moral condition) because their view was God started things going, gave us reason and the ability to discern Him? That they believed we should each take responsibility for leading a good life based on thought and study? That a government must leave people alone in matters of faith? What are we talking about?
I suggest this the question to address, not poke at pop assumptions. There is no discourse where the sole purpose is to overcome others’ conclusions. That is tyranny. That is what the Deists detested.
PS: what is this “believe” in the bible? Think about what that means. It is one of those phrases thrown out to put up wall and fend off any uncomfortable thoughts. Rest assured, the Deists studied the Bible, far more than most priests and ministers today; they lived each day under is influence. As to what whether they “believed” in it, that is a question without a meaning.The Catholic church already understands that “facts” reported in the Bible are not scientific or historical “facts” as we understand them, so you can’t “believe” in those items with a straight face. Are Deists “wrong” because they consider the Bible, I think it is fair to say they still exist in some form, rather than absorb as true stories and poetic references? What is it you want from them?
What do you “believe?”
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
But I addressed your concern in that same post. I already mentioned how the Church was established by the Roman Empire in the 4th century, and began a long entanglement with ecclesiastical and civil authority. But that was not the original message of Christianity, as I said. This entanglement worked to the destruction of the Church as much as it did to the Civil authority. But the main point I tried to hammer home, was that the Church always maintained its independence (indeed its superiority) to the civil authority. By that I meant that the Church did not want the intermeddling of the civil authority with ecclesiastical affairs. This was the primary way heresies were promoted and fostered. Secondly the Church’s superiority was meant to be over moral laws, not over civil laws. This was consistently taught and believed by the Church since Apostolic times.
Next, the Church of England suffered tremendously by the 19th century due to the Erastianism of the Church of England. This was also working to the destruction of the Church of England as much as it worked against non-conformists (like Catholics and Deists)
Lastly, the Founding fathers all believed in the importance of religion for the support of moral laws which undergirded all civil laws and responsibility. Their belief in the separation of Church and State was meant to promote Religion, as much as to remove prejudice and bigotry from civil government. However, they never meant that all traces of religion should be expunged from every public venue. (I’m not accusing you of having said that.) But currently it is the de-facto belief of what is meant by the separation of Church and State.
B
brb2
Guest
Because of testimony of John.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him [Thomas], “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”
John 14:6 Jesus said to him [Thomas], “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”
N
nichol0
Guest
As a Deist I see co debate here. If I were to pray and ask God to help me win the loot to help the poor, and my prayer wasn’t ansered, it would be the Lord’s will. To say God is not a personal God means that God is omniscient enough to have planned his will from creation without constantly interfereing. Interfereing against the his purpose for creation would be contradictory. That’s all Deism means. I do not have conversations with God on a daily basis I live through his creation and follow the life of Christ. Was Crist an intervention or an unfolding plan? See the paradox yet fusion. Whether God intervened or planned for Christ is semantics. God knew before creation. Yes a little like predetermination, however Deists believe in free will, sin, and the reurection because of Jesus’ free will. I see no debate here. Deists see God with reason where theists use their hearts. So what.
B
Be_Tolerant
Guest
Deism is the belief that man cannot interpret god’s will.
Deist’s live by a set of morals, i personally have many of my own morals inspired by the bible so i find it offensive for you to state that i do not believe in the moral lessons it teaches.
i may not find all of it to be factual, but i do find the stories significant and a good basis to live your life. Atheism is the belief in no god, i believe in god so we are different.
that would be like me calling you the same as satanic because both of you worship a higher being.
sorry if i offended any of your beliefs, that was not my intention.
Z
Zen_76
Guest
In my opinion, Deism is a very good philosophical perspective of God. I was brought up Catholic and I still am, but my attitude towards God and His role coincides more with Deism. I just don’t believe that God is interceding in our daily lives. With the the genocides happening all over the world, world hunger, world poverty, and innocent people dying to cancer and at the hands of murderers, how could God possibly have a role in this? The God that I know and love wouldn’t possibly be allowing any of this to happen. I also don’t think God cares too much about how we live our lives. I mean, He loves us all equally, and with his divine grace, will not completely turn us down when we must meet Him. Like a good father, God will love us regardless of what we do…God made the Earth and everything else in existence and then let everything spin on it’s own axis (literally). That’s it.
2
2460none
Guest
I don’t get what you people don’t understand. You keep saying, why would God die for us if he was not Jesus? Hello!!! If you don’t believe Jesus was the savior, then, God didn’t die as Jesus for us, because you don’t believe it happened! I am a rare breed of what is called Christian Deist. Catholic Deist, to be precise. I have four primary reasons as for why I converted from Catholicism to Catholic Deism.
To start, I found majority of catholics stupid to say that called controls all factors of life. False? So that implies that for all the good things he is responsible for, that implies he is also responsible for all the sources of evil. ? That would make him a JEWISH GOD. Aka, a God who believes in discipline, law, and hierarchy, over discipleship, love, and morality. If God is just something that controls everything, that makes him similar to a force, or actually, the pharisees. Just some sole pillar of law and justice that strikes down all who oppose. If God does this, then he is just a God. What makes him God, the Lord Almighty of Heaven, is that he himself abides by the rules of his own creation. And that is why we love God, because although he is unopposed as a sole ruling monarch, he is all that is morally just and fair. Doesn’t that make more sense?
Next, if God is not omnipotent. It says it in the Bible, which I have read. When God sent the flood during the time of Noah, he said “And after this flood I shall never wipe the face of the earth of sin ever again” or something along those lines. If God is omnipotent, that implies he can do anything. But here, he has made a promise, limiting his power. If he keeps it, he does not have the power to kill everyone on earth through the method of the flood. If he breaks his promise, not only does it show God does not have the ability to keep a promise, but it shows that either God can change his mind, he blatantly lies, or God is not a moral being. And I think this is false. I think God is a moral being. I just believe God restricts his own power.
Also, I don’t like a lot of the Bible. After reading the Bible, I got really baffled and deeply disappointed in the Bible. If one is a CHRISTIAN, that means they should follow the direct word of CHRIST. Is that not true? Is he, and God, not the focus? I find that most Catholics focus on wrong parts of the Bible, like the book of Psalms and the book of Judges? If you were to read Jesus’s teachings, they have a few main focuses. One, being that of good people vs sinners, where we shall all be judged for who we are on judgement day. Two, being that of the beatitudes in that the greatest of men are the poor, the hungry, the merciful, the peacemakers, the pure of heart, the meek, the mourners, and the falsely punished. All of these I find correct. But if you were to look towards countless other parts of the Bible, it directly contradicts this, saying that the rich are actually the ones Jesus praised, and most of all, all of the wars people had over the bible. Jesus said don’t fight wars, NEVER FIGHT WARS. And what happens? Religious wars. I think that the only credible parts of the Bible are the Books of Jesus, the Books of Moses, and maybe the Book of Revelation if it gets lucky. The books of Jesus should have the highest focus though.
I think God does not openly intervene in the world. After all, why wouldn’t people who are blatantly sinners be condemned by him and struck down? I think he indirectly do things. For example, I don’t think he heals people, but does so through that of a doctor or medic.
And finally, I don’t think Jesus was born without sin. People are like, “Michael, why don’t you believe that of all things?”. I just find that it seems like a part of the Bible that was added in later. Did Jesus ever say that he was born clean of all sins? I don’t recall him ever personally saying it. I think Jesus was born a normal man, and had to make himself into that of perfection. After all, how can we ever hope to follow Jesus if he was beyond mortalness? We would follow him, just not very well. There was also a long period of time between ages about 8-30 where we hear little to nothing about him. What went on then? I think it was his time for becoming the Enlightened teacher we know him to be. If people take the side of nurture over nature, then that means if one were to do the exact same things as Jesus did, then they would become him. I think that is why the section is missing from the Bible. That, and he didn’t really do much during that time. And how about this little paradox for you. Did Jesus’s parents ever punish him for disobeying them, or doing something they didn’t like? Ever? Did they ever have any slight disagreement? If Jesus were to follow them, and was perfect, then he would be tainted by impurity. If he didn’t follow them, then he disrespects his own rule of honor thy mother and father. If Jesus was born mortal, then things would make a lot more sense.
So this is pretty much why I’m a Catholic Deist. I believe in Christ, but am not illogical in my beliefs. So no, Deist and Atheists are not the same. And what happened to “do not judge, and you shall not be judged. Show mercy, and God shall be merciful to you”? Who are you to judge atheists or deists? It is their beliefs, not yours. As long as it is only affecting themselves, you are not God to judge them. The words of Christ are spoken by those who seek only but to be his followers.
To start, I found majority of catholics stupid to say that called controls all factors of life. False? So that implies that for all the good things he is responsible for, that implies he is also responsible for all the sources of evil. ? That would make him a JEWISH GOD. Aka, a God who believes in discipline, law, and hierarchy, over discipleship, love, and morality. If God is just something that controls everything, that makes him similar to a force, or actually, the pharisees. Just some sole pillar of law and justice that strikes down all who oppose. If God does this, then he is just a God. What makes him God, the Lord Almighty of Heaven, is that he himself abides by the rules of his own creation. And that is why we love God, because although he is unopposed as a sole ruling monarch, he is all that is morally just and fair. Doesn’t that make more sense?
Next, if God is not omnipotent. It says it in the Bible, which I have read. When God sent the flood during the time of Noah, he said “And after this flood I shall never wipe the face of the earth of sin ever again” or something along those lines. If God is omnipotent, that implies he can do anything. But here, he has made a promise, limiting his power. If he keeps it, he does not have the power to kill everyone on earth through the method of the flood. If he breaks his promise, not only does it show God does not have the ability to keep a promise, but it shows that either God can change his mind, he blatantly lies, or God is not a moral being. And I think this is false. I think God is a moral being. I just believe God restricts his own power.
Also, I don’t like a lot of the Bible. After reading the Bible, I got really baffled and deeply disappointed in the Bible. If one is a CHRISTIAN, that means they should follow the direct word of CHRIST. Is that not true? Is he, and God, not the focus? I find that most Catholics focus on wrong parts of the Bible, like the book of Psalms and the book of Judges? If you were to read Jesus’s teachings, they have a few main focuses. One, being that of good people vs sinners, where we shall all be judged for who we are on judgement day. Two, being that of the beatitudes in that the greatest of men are the poor, the hungry, the merciful, the peacemakers, the pure of heart, the meek, the mourners, and the falsely punished. All of these I find correct. But if you were to look towards countless other parts of the Bible, it directly contradicts this, saying that the rich are actually the ones Jesus praised, and most of all, all of the wars people had over the bible. Jesus said don’t fight wars, NEVER FIGHT WARS. And what happens? Religious wars. I think that the only credible parts of the Bible are the Books of Jesus, the Books of Moses, and maybe the Book of Revelation if it gets lucky. The books of Jesus should have the highest focus though.
I think God does not openly intervene in the world. After all, why wouldn’t people who are blatantly sinners be condemned by him and struck down? I think he indirectly do things. For example, I don’t think he heals people, but does so through that of a doctor or medic.
And finally, I don’t think Jesus was born without sin. People are like, “Michael, why don’t you believe that of all things?”. I just find that it seems like a part of the Bible that was added in later. Did Jesus ever say that he was born clean of all sins? I don’t recall him ever personally saying it. I think Jesus was born a normal man, and had to make himself into that of perfection. After all, how can we ever hope to follow Jesus if he was beyond mortalness? We would follow him, just not very well. There was also a long period of time between ages about 8-30 where we hear little to nothing about him. What went on then? I think it was his time for becoming the Enlightened teacher we know him to be. If people take the side of nurture over nature, then that means if one were to do the exact same things as Jesus did, then they would become him. I think that is why the section is missing from the Bible. That, and he didn’t really do much during that time. And how about this little paradox for you. Did Jesus’s parents ever punish him for disobeying them, or doing something they didn’t like? Ever? Did they ever have any slight disagreement? If Jesus were to follow them, and was perfect, then he would be tainted by impurity. If he didn’t follow them, then he disrespects his own rule of honor thy mother and father. If Jesus was born mortal, then things would make a lot more sense.
So this is pretty much why I’m a Catholic Deist. I believe in Christ, but am not illogical in my beliefs. So no, Deist and Atheists are not the same. And what happened to “do not judge, and you shall not be judged. Show mercy, and God shall be merciful to you”? Who are you to judge atheists or deists? It is their beliefs, not yours. As long as it is only affecting themselves, you are not God to judge them. The words of Christ are spoken by those who seek only but to be his followers.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It seems to me God allows horrible things to happen precisely because God loves us enough to give us our freedom. God does not micromanage our lives; in fact, God suffers along with us, even to death by crucifixion.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
The irony is that Deists fancy themselves as rationalists, not given to devotional or religious fervor. But the entire Deist error was exploded by the Anglican Divine Joseph Butler in the 1730’s in his book Analogy of Religion. Why reinvent the wheel? If a Deist can read AND understand that book, and can argue rationally against it, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, modern day Deists are basically just interested in designer religions. On the surface it sounds smart, and they never intend to do more than gaze on the surface. Next year they may become involved with Scientology or Universal Unitarianism.
- Status