Christian Deist

[Neo Deist]

I'm atheist, I was simply explaining a common definition of Christianity.

I know. Revisiting an old thread.

 

[Bunyip]

I know. Revisiting an old thread.

No worries.

Just for the sake of the argument though, I do understand what you are saying - I think that interpreting scripture to suggest that Jesus was the son of God as we are all God's children makes a lot of sense. That was very much the form of Catholicism I was raised in.

 

[Neo Deist]

That is what I have to remind people of. The NT, especially the gospels, was written years after Jesus' death. Certain elements of the story had to be told a certain way, otherwise the Christian revolution during the time of the Roman Empire was all for naught. The Book of Matthew goes to great lengths to try and convince people of its authenticity and Jesus' divinity, but a careful examination of its contents reveals that the author is obviously "skewing" some facts.

For example: Matthew 27:62-66. This was a private conversation yet the author of Matthew wrote about it. How is it that a Christian writer knows what took place behind closed doors with Pilate, Jewish priests and Roman guards? This part of the story just fuels the concept that the tomb was guarded and sealed, and in no way could anyone have stolen the body. This was necessary for the resurrection "miracle." Sounds like a cover-up or conspiracy to me.

 

[Bunyip]

That is what I have to remind people of. The NT, especially the gospels, was written years after Jesus' death. Certain elements of the story had to be told a certain way, otherwise the Christian revolution during the time of the Roman Empire was all for naught. The Book of Matthew goes to great lengths to try and convince people of its authenticity and Jesus' divinity, but a careful examination of its contents reveals that the author is obviously "skewing" some facts.

For example: Matthew 27:62-66. This was a private conversation yet the author of Matthew wrote about it. How is it that a Christian writer knows what took place behind closed doors with Pilate and his Roman guards? This part of the story just fuels the concept that the tomb was guarded and sealed, and in no way could anyone have stolen the body. This was necessary for the resurrection "miracle." Sounds like a cover-up or conspiracy to me.

I think that many people miss the fact that if Jesus had described himself as the son of God he would have been arrested and executed for heresy.

 

[Neo Deist]

I think that many people miss the fact that if Jesus had described himself as the son of God he would have been arrested and executed for heresy.

Well, since they were under the Roman Empire execution would have been up to the Romans, not the Jews. Many people have this idea that the Pharisees DEMANDED that Jesus be executed, but in truth Pilate could have told them to kiss his *** and that would have been the end of it. The Jews could not stand up to the Roman Legions. It was learned later on that Pilate was unusually cruel and was even removed from office and exiled by Caesar. There is a good chance that Pilate was just playing a game with them for his own amusement.

There is evidence (though I can't place my finger on it this very second) that Jesus was executed by the Romans for inciting a rebellion.

Thus we strip away the fantasy surrounding the stories, and get to the meat and potatoes.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, since they were under the Roman Empire execution would have been up to the Romans, not the Jews. Many people have this idea that the Pharisees DEMANDED that Jesus be executed, but in truth Pilate could have told them to kiss his *** and that would have been the end of it. The Jews could not stand up to the Roman Legions. It was learned later on that Pilate was unusually cruel and was even removed from office and exiled by Caesar. There is a good chance that Pilate was just playing a game with them for his own amusement.

There is evidence (though I can't place my finger on it this very second) that Jesus was executed by the Romans for inciting a rebellion.

Thus we strip away the fantasy surrounding the stories, and get to the meat and potatoes.

The Romans tended to leave the priesthood to take care of such matters.

Now I don't wish to offend anyone - but when you do strip all of the um...metaphysical bits away, the story gets far more interesting. To interpret the life of Jesus as if he were a man - he becomes this incredibly brave freedom fighter, centuries ahead of his time. Alternatively if you assume he was divine, it loses so much of it's power to me.

Stand up to Rome as a normal person like you or me - that takes courage. Standing up to a mere earthly power as a god is nothing,

 

[Neo Deist]

The Romans tended to leave the priesthood to take care of such matters.

Yes and no. The Pharisees along with Herod were mere pawns under Roman rule. Archaeology has uncovered that the Jewish priest class lived a life of luxury while the commoners struggled to survive. They were obviously under the Roman payroll, but they were also subject to Roman dominance. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not Jewish. It was actually against Jewish law as it was considered torture. It was the Romans that nailed Jesus to the cross. Speculation is that the Romans (Pilate) wanted to quell his little rebellion because the Pharisees could not control him.

The whole "he died for our sins" idea came about long after his death.

The missing body was a necessity for a risen messiah, otherwise it was game over for Christianity. Did he really resurrect or was his body stolen? Or...did the Romans take him down from the cross and throw his body in the garbage dump, like they did all the others?

 

[dust1n]

Some Christians think that God is in control of everything, and every aspect of their lives are because of His will. I personally do not buy it. Why on earth would God care what shirt I decided to wear? Why would He care if I chose Taco Bell or Burger King? Is the color of my new car I am about to buy really subject to divine intervention?

Why would a god care about human life at all, let alone morality, worship, or death? There's nothing that indicates that god doesn't just finds human misery humorous.

 

[TPaine]

I would think a Christian Deist would be a Unitarian who would agree with much of Thomas Jefferson's The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I would think a Christian Deist would be a Unitarian who would agree with much of Thomas Jefferson's The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth.

He said his belief was one of a kind. He didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus and referred to him as Jesus instead of Christ, thus denying the human sacrifice of Jesus. And he didn't believe in God's supernatural interaction in the World which was why he composed the Jefferson Bible wherein he edited them all out. I don't think he even believed in divine providence like Paine and Washington did--it not being consistent with a laissez-faire God by reason of God's commitment to our free will, the apparent sole purpose for the universe.

 

[Spartan]

Check out John Shelby Spong's thoughts on the resurrection.

Spong is a heretic - a wolf in sheep's clothing - and teaches the doctrines of the devil himself.

What's Wrong With Bishop Spong? - creation.com

 

[Shakazuluuuuu]

For you traditional deists, I know that the very thought of such a term is like scraping fingernails across a chalk board. However, I have had people ask me about the title and if it is even possible. While I have my own reservations against it, I did want to touch on it. I am going to set aside my personal opinions and biases and just deal with the two words that make up the term.

Christian: simply put, one who believes in and follows Jesus Christ.

What is not so clear is to what degree must you believe and follow. There is not a single verse in the NT that says "you must accept Jesus into your heart in order to be saved." The verses only talk about following Jesus by practicing what he taught. Likewise there is not a single verse where Jesus comes out and says "I am God." I am well aware of the verses that might hint at it, but the claim is never made. Based on these key points, one could say they were "Christian" because they believe in the teachings of Jesus and they practice what he preached.

Deist: one who rejects revealed religions and holy books. They believe in God because of observations in nature. Many, if not most, believe in free will. God does not intervene.

This is where it gets tricky to try and make the two co-exist. To be a deist means that you reject the Bible as the divine word of God. You understand that humans wrote the Bible and it was heavily influenced by the cultures of the period. It is not a literal history or science textbook. It is highly allegorical and contains a ton of metaphors within the stories. There are hundreds of translations that differ because publishing houses have copyrights and there is big money in religion.

So, the key questions are:

1. Can you believe in Jesus as a mortal man, a teacher, and as an example of a moral lifestyle, but not the divine son of God, or God incarnate?
2. Can you believe that the Bible is not the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God, and is subject to interpretation and opinion, especially when translating out of the native languages?
3. What do you do about the belief in the resurrection (I will touch on this at the end)?
4. Will you still be a Christian?

I think it is possible.

Many modern Christians concede that science has proven much that contradicts what the Bible says. But there again, "what the Bible says" is highly subjective depending on the denomination, pastor, etc. Some Christians believe in a Young Earth while others do not. Some believe that the KJV is the one true Bible, while others do not. It appears that there are far more traditional teachings that need to be stripped away first, before one can truly understand and appreciate what the Bible actually says. I can't tell you the number of times someone will be "preaching" to me and will say something that is not found anywhere in the Bible, but because they have heard it repeated all of their life, they take it for granted that it is in there. Every Christian knows John 3:16. When asked which verse states that we go to heaven upon our death as a Christian, they can't quote it, even though it is one of the single greatest beliefs of Christianity. You'd think it would rank up there with John 3:16...but it doesn't because it does not actually exist!

If one concentrates on the message that Jesus was presenting, and not so much on arguing over other talking points like whether or not there is a devil (or insert belief X here), one could say that they were a "Christian Deist." In other words:

1. I believe in God.
2. I believe in free will and because of it, God does not intervene.
3. I believe that Jesus had a positive message and I try to follow his teachings.
4. I understand that the Bible is not meant to be taken 100% literally.

The resurrection...

Ok, so how would a "CD" deal with this particular aspect. Christianity seems to hinge on the concept of the resurrection, and it is even talked about in the New Testament. This is a tough one.

The Book of Mark is widely considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. It originally ended with 16:8, which had the women fleeing from the empty tomb. That's it. No future sightings of Jesus or anything. Many scholars believe that it was amended later in order to support the resurrection claim that the other books talk about. Why? What evidence supports this theory? The writing style changes after 16:8, which is not typical if the author is the same throughout.

There was nothing magical or mystical about the original ending of Mark. They went into the tomb, saw a young man (it does not say angel) dressed in a white robe who said "He is not here." They fled the tomb and told no one. End of story. One could say that the other gospels needed more than that in order to make their beliefs "believable," so that their new found religion could spread.

Was the resurrection a hoax? Possibly. I know to many Christians that sounds like blasphemy, but stop and think about it logically for a minute. They HAD to have a resurrection, otherwise it was all for naught. Rebellions and revolutions start with an idea. A resurrected messiah who has given us the keys to paradise, and will come again, is a HUGE revolutionary idea.

Thoughts?

NT. Either window NT or natural theist. The ******* was cast out. He trod a trail with a pillar on his shoulders with a couple thieves cast up a forehead. A crown of thorns and the sun sweating his brow. Gave it up. His existence. For what?


3 days in that cave. Some of us are tough as nails. Tougher 2.

 

[Goodman John]

With reference to the life of Jesus specifically, I look to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, by Thomas Jefferson (yes THAT Thomas Jefferson). Jefferson combined the Gospels into a coherent narrative, putting the various events in the proper timeline BUT he stripped out all the 'magic' parts and focused directly on Jesus' lessons. His narrative begins with Jesus' birth (no Immaculate Conception) and ends with his death and burial (no Resurrection).

With Jesus' story in this form, I can easily see it being incorporated into almost any sort of Christian-ish narrative. What it shows, at its most basic, is that Jesus doesn't HAVE to be 'divine' for his teachings to be accepted as valid. If Jesus says an orange is orange-colored, is it any more orange if Jesus is divine? No, of course not.

For my purposes, I see Jesus as a Man like any other except that the spirit of the Christ was within him and spoke through him to give us his message. (In the Cathar view, our bodies are nothing more than vehicles for our spirit/soul anyway. The Christ could have appeared in Pilate or Judas or Teddy Roosevelt; it was luck of the draw that Jesus was ground zero.)

 

[Balthazzar]

For you traditional deists, I know that the very thought of such a term is like scraping fingernails across a chalk board. However, I have had people ask me about the title and if it is even possible. While I have my own reservations against it, I did want to touch on it. I am going to set aside my personal opinions and biases and just deal with the two words that make up the term.

Christian: simply put, one who believes in and follows Jesus Christ.

What is not so clear is to what degree must you believe and follow. There is not a single verse in the NT that says "you must accept Jesus into your heart in order to be saved." The verses only talk about following Jesus by practicing what he taught. Likewise there is not a single verse where Jesus comes out and says "I am God." I am well aware of the verses that might hint at it, but the claim is never made. Based on these key points, one could say they were "Christian" because they believe in the teachings of Jesus and they practice what he preached.

Deist: one who rejects revealed religions and holy books. They believe in God because of observations in nature. Many, if not most, believe in free will. God does not intervene.

This is where it gets tricky to try and make the two co-exist. To be a deist means that you reject the Bible as the divine word of God. You understand that humans wrote the Bible and it was heavily influenced by the cultures of the period. It is not a literal history or science textbook. It is highly allegorical and contains a ton of metaphors within the stories. There are hundreds of translations that differ because publishing houses have copyrights and there is big money in religion.

So, the key questions are:

1. Can you believe in Jesus as a mortal man, a teacher, and as an example of a moral lifestyle, but not the divine son of God, or God incarnate?
2. Can you believe that the Bible is not the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God, and is subject to interpretation and opinion, especially when translating out of the native languages?
3. What do you do about the belief in the resurrection (I will touch on this at the end)?
4. Will you still be a Christian?

I think it is possible.

Many modern Christians concede that science has proven much that contradicts what the Bible says. But there again, "what the Bible says" is highly subjective depending on the denomination, pastor, etc. Some Christians believe in a Young Earth while others do not. Some believe that the KJV is the one true Bible, while others do not. It appears that there are far more traditional teachings that need to be stripped away first, before one can truly understand and appreciate what the Bible actually says. I can't tell you the number of times someone will be "preaching" to me and will say something that is not found anywhere in the Bible, but because they have heard it repeated all of their life, they take it for granted that it is in there. Every Christian knows John 3:16. When asked which verse states that we go to heaven upon our death as a Christian, they can't quote it, even though it is one of the single greatest beliefs of Christianity. You'd think it would rank up there with John 3:16...but it doesn't because it does not actually exist!

If one concentrates on the message that Jesus was presenting, and not so much on arguing over other talking points like whether or not there is a devil (or insert belief X here), one could say that they were a "Christian Deist." In other words:

1. I believe in God.
2. I believe in free will and because of it, God does not intervene.
3. I believe that Jesus had a positive message and I try to follow his teachings.
4. I understand that the Bible is not meant to be taken 100% literally.

The resurrection...

Ok, so how would a "CD" deal with this particular aspect. Christianity seems to hinge on the concept of the resurrection, and it is even talked about in the New Testament. This is a tough one.

The Book of Mark is widely considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. It originally ended with 16:8, which had the women fleeing from the empty tomb. That's it. No future sightings of Jesus or anything. Many scholars believe that it was amended later in order to support the resurrection claim that the other books talk about. Why? What evidence supports this theory? The writing style changes after 16:8, which is not typical if the author is the same throughout.

There was nothing magical or mystical about the original ending of Mark. They went into the tomb, saw a young man (it does not say angel) dressed in a white robe who said "He is not here." They fled the tomb and told no one. End of story. One could say that the other gospels needed more than that in order to make their beliefs "believable," so that their new found religion could spread.

Was the resurrection a hoax? Possibly. I know to many Christians that sounds like blasphemy, but stop and think about it logically for a minute. They HAD to have a resurrection, otherwise it was all for naught. Rebellions and revolutions start with an idea. A resurrected messiah who has given us the keys to paradise, and will come again, is a HUGE revolutionary idea.

Thoughts?

I label myself as a Christian Evolutionist, based largely on your criteria for using the term "Christian" in conjunction with the term "Evolutionist". I obviously view both to be valid as a source for belief and inspiration, and likewise faith.

Deism is no less valid.

The reason for my unique or maybe not so unique views are due to a more practical approach in my study of the scriptures. I use more of a practice in life model, or I attempt to put myself in the shoes worn for the discovery of sight and comprehension of the passages. Not unlike deist who typically wouldn't be opposed to garnering inspiration, and tid bits of the life wisdom exemplified and illustrated by our forefathers.

The scriptures are pretty great at this, whether by way of do's or don't do's, based on consequence of actions portrayed in them. It's little different than observing leaders in our communities, allowing them to example their approach to life. The resurrection - That's a tough one for many. I see it as a spiritual resurrection, and not so much one of the "flesh body" of Jesus. Rather, the spirit of Jesus was resurrected in the flesh, the spirit of truth, as inside those who embrace it, The scriptures allude to this in 1 John 4 - Even when it was suggested that if Jesus was not risen from the grave in the flesh, that their faith would be in vain (a stumbling block for many). Likewise in John 14, 15, 16 - round about - it's written that the spirit of truth will be sent to guide us into all truth.

John 14:20 - "In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you."

In any case, I enjoy reading people who think outside the box -