-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are diests really different from the Christian view?
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Very_Irreverand_Bill
New Member
Deism is a intellelectual philosophical viewpoint, and a progressive and open-ende done at that.
The classic deists of the enlightenment and the founding father sof the U.S. were like the liberal theists of today; some were deistic Christians, but some-such as Thomas Paine and others were either just PLAIN liberal theists, agno-deists, and right out Deists{Thomas Paine beeing this; he did not see God as a personal sky-daddy, but merely as first cause}.
Todays Deism is even more progressive and diverse. My own deism is that in which I believe in the probability of a intelligent first cause/prime mover/uncaused causer of all causes force of some unknown sort; impersonal and beyond human morality and understandings; I am often of a PanDeistic or PanenDeistic mindset as well. That brings me to my next point; Deism can be mixed with other philosophies or into other religions. PanDeism/PanenDeism is Pantheism/PanenTheism without the "personalk" or "loving" divinity aspects, and without as much fluffiness.
Deisms can be mixed with religions. Like I said, some of the classic deists and U.S. founding Fathers for example were Christian Deists...such as Thomas Jefferson{though he believed NOT in miracles and denied the trinity and despised the Yahweh of the O.T.}.
I am myself of a Deistic form of Satanism/Luciferianism; which is symbolic satanism/luciferianism mixed with deism.
Deists can be Pagans, Buddhists, Taoists,etc. Deism is the standpoint between Pantheism,atheism,agnosticism, and plain theism.
In Reason:
Irreverand Bill
The classic deists of the enlightenment and the founding father sof the U.S. were like the liberal theists of today; some were deistic Christians, but some-such as Thomas Paine and others were either just PLAIN liberal theists, agno-deists, and right out Deists{Thomas Paine beeing this; he did not see God as a personal sky-daddy, but merely as first cause}.
Todays Deism is even more progressive and diverse. My own deism is that in which I believe in the probability of a intelligent first cause/prime mover/uncaused causer of all causes force of some unknown sort; impersonal and beyond human morality and understandings; I am often of a PanDeistic or PanenDeistic mindset as well. That brings me to my next point; Deism can be mixed with other philosophies or into other religions. PanDeism/PanenDeism is Pantheism/PanenTheism without the "personalk" or "loving" divinity aspects, and without as much fluffiness.
Deisms can be mixed with religions. Like I said, some of the classic deists and U.S. founding Fathers for example were Christian Deists...such as Thomas Jefferson{though he believed NOT in miracles and denied the trinity and despised the Yahweh of the O.T.}.
I am myself of a Deistic form of Satanism/Luciferianism; which is symbolic satanism/luciferianism mixed with deism.
Deists can be Pagans, Buddhists, Taoists,etc. Deism is the standpoint between Pantheism,atheism,agnosticism, and plain theism.
In Reason:
Irreverand Bill
Mary Blackchurch
Free from Stockholm Syndrome
Unphased said:
I am an agnostic. And as much as I can find complete beauty in the writings of Thomas Paine or a concerto written by Beethoven, I can surely find beauty in the psalms of the bible as well as the moral code that this Jesus supposedly tried to define. After all, all of the above were written by men who were ingenious. I am not a Christian and think that Jesus was probably an urban legend imposed on the Jewish hierarchy for political reasons. And just look how well it has worked! But to believe that he raised people from the dead, made blind people see, etc.--thats just the monkey part of the brain at work.
If you know the bible, he promised that the people following him would do the same, yet that never happened. So, I feel it's okay to use some of his purported moral ideations but I have my own and know them intrinsically as well. One of them is to not be fooled by anything that is imaginatory i.e. santa claus, etc. Many atheists who have never even read the bible or had a religious upbringing lead very moral lives. Why? It's intrinsic to the nature of most of us.
Jistyr
Inquisitive Youngin'
The God that deists believe in is quite different than the God that Christians follow, for the Deist God merely created the world and can no longer affect it. So Deism also differs from Christianity because they do not believe so much in praying and believing in miracles, or a God that will allow one's entrance to Heaven or damn someone to Hell. So Deists don't spend so much time worshiping God and turning to him for change. That's another larger difference aside from the lack of Jesus Christ in Deism.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I have posted this elsewhere, but will add it here as an explanation of my Deist beliefs, and the obvious difference from Christianity.
Articles of Reason
by Gary S Hudgens
1. Human beings are endowed by their Creator with the ability to Reason.
2. Reason and Natural Law lead us closer to the truth.
3. Reason leads us to believe in one God, or Prime Mover, who began Creation, and let Creation follow its own path, according to Natural Law.
4. Reason leads us to believe that all Human Beings are equal, regardless of race, origin, gender, or sexual preference.
5. We owe it to ourselves, as Reasonable beings, to act morally towards one and other.
6. God works within the realm of Natural Law, “miracle” and “revealed revelation” does not fit within Natural Law or Reason.
7. We owe it to ourselves, as Reasonable beings, whose very existence is dependent upon Natural Law, to be thoughtful caretakers of this world.
8. God, through Natural Law, gave us life. Reason leads us to believe that our purpose in life should be to live life to the fullest, and to ensure that all are provided the opportunity to do so.
9. Natural Law gives us Freewill. Predestination is contrary to Natural Law and is not Reasonable.
10. There is no “True Path”. As Science and understanding of our Natural world evolve, so too will our understanding of God.
Articles of Reason
by Gary S Hudgens
1. Human beings are endowed by their Creator with the ability to Reason.
2. Reason and Natural Law lead us closer to the truth.
3. Reason leads us to believe in one God, or Prime Mover, who began Creation, and let Creation follow its own path, according to Natural Law.
4. Reason leads us to believe that all Human Beings are equal, regardless of race, origin, gender, or sexual preference.
5. We owe it to ourselves, as Reasonable beings, to act morally towards one and other.
6. God works within the realm of Natural Law, “miracle” and “revealed revelation” does not fit within Natural Law or Reason.
7. We owe it to ourselves, as Reasonable beings, whose very existence is dependent upon Natural Law, to be thoughtful caretakers of this world.
8. God, through Natural Law, gave us life. Reason leads us to believe that our purpose in life should be to live life to the fullest, and to ensure that all are provided the opportunity to do so.
9. Natural Law gives us Freewill. Predestination is contrary to Natural Law and is not Reasonable.
10. There is no “True Path”. As Science and understanding of our Natural world evolve, so too will our understanding of God.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Nowhere in any of the founding documents are the words "Heavenly Father", "Jesus Christ", "Christian", "Savior" or "Messiah" used. However.....
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Nowhere in any of the founding documents are the words "Heavenly Father", "Jesus Christ", "Christian", "Savior" or "Messiah" used. However.....
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Rhonan
Member
Not all of the founding fathers of the US were Deist. Many were though. Some were Masons, and the rest were Christians.
Deists during this time were raised as Methodists or Anglicans etc. As a result many were Christianized Deists. Their god was the Judeo-Christian God. Franklin was known to say that Christianity is the best religion - noting Christ as the best example for moral living. Franklin actually wanted to live his life pleasing to God - though he himself was a Deist. Jefferson said similiar things. Jefferson was not an Atheist; he was a deist who firmly believed in a creator. He actually tried to re-write the life of Christ - reinventing him as a wise philosopher, leaving out all miraculous things found in the New Testament. In many ways, Jefferson substituted his logic and reasoning into his own version of Christ. He did not publically describe his beliefs, but he and others frequently acknowledged the creator. In fact, many of them held public prayer, thanking God for his blessings; Jefferson among them - the same man who coined the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state."
That phrase meant just that - that the government would not impose religion on others; it did not mean men could not express their faith via public prayer, though we now ban that because it is seen as government approving a religion.
Yes, the founding fathers were Christian Deists. They all strived to live out the principles of Christ; they all believed in a rational Divine and a rational universe, and they all favored the Christian faith above others - though they hated all vices and evils of all religions.
Nowadays "Deist" has a broader definition. A Deist is simply someone who believes in a god or gods, believes in the unaltered evolutionary process - denies miraculous events - believes that man cannot directly know God in any way - and believes in an afterlife, etc.
~
Some people can claim all day that Jefferson was an Atheist because of his condemnation of certain religious failures... and because of his "separation of church and state" comment - yet this is simply un-true.
It's been a while since I visited this forum. I can address this question.
The Founders created two documents, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. The Declaration defined the US creed, our core philosophy. The Constitution defined the US government.
The authors of the Declaration were mostly Christian. A minority were what are called rational theists. The rational theists believed in God. They believed that God can intervene in the world. They did not consider divine revelation, as in prophets, saints and christs. That doesn't mean they didn't necessarily believe in divine revelation. That means that when they considered practical matters, such as the application of law, they did not look to divine revelation for direction. They only looked to naturalism instead. As one of the Christian Founders put it, they rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Some rational theists were Christian. Some, like Jefferson, were basically Deists who believed that divine revelation was valuable for giving a society moral direction. Some, like Franklin, believed as Jefferson did, but they believed that God did intervene in human affairs, so they were non-Christian rational theists.
Today we accept rational theism as being a type of Deism. Deism is a general classification of similar beliefs, not a specific belief. The main things that Deistic faiths have in common are the belief in God, and the non-acceptance of divine revelation.
The Declaration was based very much on rational theism, which is based on naturalism. In naturalism, God's will with respect to worldly affairs is natural truth. God's will with respect to spiritual affairs is not considered. Rational theism declares that spiritual affairs are best left between God and the individual. The government has no place stepping in between God and the individual, so the Christians accepted this arrangement of rational theism in the Declaration.
The Framers of the Constitution were almost all Christians. They kept to the idea of keeping government from coming between God and the individual.
Both the Framers and Founders believed in the value of faith in providing moral guidance. The phrase in the Declaration "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" literally means "God's natural law and the moral principles found in religious faiths." They were intentionally unspecific about which religious faith because they wanted to avoid religious schisms. The Constitution requires an oath of office for certain government positions. An oath in the language of the day meant swearing on your faith in God. (Taken literally, this means that atheists and agnostics cannot serve in government roles that require an oath.) In both the Declaration and the Constitution God is required to be present, but divine revelation is forbidden. The core values are naturalism, not Christianity.
I hope I answered the original poster's question.
In the meanwhile, I write about this kind of stuff at length in by blog at
my Amorian Deism site. (I would give a link, but the forum doesn't let me do that until I have 15 posts. Try "amorian dot org".)
Deist David
A serious Deist!
This thread appears to be more about "Desim in American history" than about Deism, so I won't join the debate at a significant level as I know little about American history - what I would politely say is that Desim originated in Europe originally and it's founding principals are far, far from those of Christianity and the Christian God.
Deism is belief in God by means of Reason, not (never) faith.
Deism is belief in God by means of Reason, not (never) faith.
No, actually deism has nothing to do with christianity. The main founding fathers were deist, but a lot of them were christians too, of all denominations. All deism is, is a belief in a non intervening god. He set up the laws and left the universe alone. I truly believe that by todays standards some of the founding fathers would be atheists. I say that, because in their time their views of a god, were much more advanced than most religions of the time, and some of the founding fathers were disgusted with religion. Thomas Jefferson created his own bible, ripping out all the mysticism of jesus, and just using some of the principals he taught. There is one thing all the founding fathers were, and that's rationalists.
Deist David
A serious Deist!
Yes.....
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
As transpersonal implies a move beyond the rational and into the mystic and supernatural, it would not apply to the impersonal (lacking any human traits) deity most deists subscribe to.
If this is accurate then Deism fails to answer the ultimate question of "Why"?
If God merely created everything, and the natural laws that govern creation's interactivity and does not care what happens there in; Why would God go through all the trouble? Why would God create humanity with the capabilities we have? Why would God create us with the reason to reason about God if God did not care what we would reason about God?
No, I'm afraid that such a disposition of Deism is severely lacking and far too simple for a perspective that rest on "belief in God based upon reason" and perhaps far to convenient for any who would espouse such a disposition.
