• 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!

Christian Deist

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
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?
 
Last edited:

JRMcC

Active Member
Thoughts?
Check out John Shelby Spong's thoughts on the resurrection.

Nice post - I'm currently reading the New Testament and so far it's not looking to me like the supernatural claims that are so strongly emphasized by Christians today are really what's meant to be most important.

I know I need to learn a lot more about the tradition but I don't read the talk about heaven, hell, raised from the dead ect. the way conventional thought does. When I read Buddha's words I don't understand Mara to be some literal evil person. A lot of Buddhists would agree that Mara just stands for temptation, sin, and an impure way of life.
So when I read that those who reject Jesus will be cast into hell, I understand that to mean that you will be screwed here in this world in one way or another if you don't follow his teachings. I don't understand it to mean that God will punish you like an abusive parent if you don't believe that Jesus is God. I guess that's just me though.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The only thing between deist and christian i see conflicting is deist dont believe God intervenes. Christians do. Unless there are different types of deists?
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?
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
The only thing between deist and christian i see conflicting is deist dont believe God intervenes. Christians do. Unless there are different types of deists?

Deism is not as widespread in beliefs as Christianity is. If anything, there are many different types of Christians. Some Christians do not believe God intervenes because of free will, just like Deists.

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? People get caught up in the "all or nothing" position and it is just ridiculous. Of course, these are the same people that decided God does not do any harm or evil, so they came up with the scapegoat idea of Satan as the devil.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
For you traditional deists, I know that the very thought of such a term is like scraping fingernails across a chalk board.

Yeah, "Christain" deists and "traditional" deists both are like stretching out my last good nerve and setting it on fire. Deism has one tenet, that God, if It exists is laissez-faire. Whatever else one speculates, that must be accounted for or it isn't deism. All the hyphenated deisms are either attempts to undermine the reasoning behind a non-interventionist God, or it's an effort to be more inclusive regardless of the damage that reasoning causes. I don't know which is more sinister.
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."

No, not that exact quote, but this is a good transliteration of it in John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." That's considerably more than a hint.

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.

I'd be willing to stipulate that a divine Jesus isn't necessary. It's becoming more apparent that the early Jewish followers led by Jesus' brother James didn't believe any of that, or that he died for our sins. But the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE dispersed that early Jewish Church. Paul's pagan version of Christianity was left alone on the field with some Gnostic holdouts that were dealt with under Constantine. Paul's core tenet was Jesus' salvific death, which is the defining one for Christianity today, which should actually be called Paulism.

Yes there are some who don't believe in the supernatural stuff, but in Jesus' moral teachings. Though I disagree heartily with most of those, that would be consistent with claiming Jesus as a moral authority--and determining morality reasonably (reason being deism's prime guiding light) is a separate issue. Once we realize that deism is saying that morality won't be coming from God, we must then come to it through reason, not on the strength of a charismatic personality, or personality at all.

I took the liberty of editing your Christian deist points, leaving 2. unchanged, and not deleting 3. for the sake of argument:

1. It is reasonable to hope that there is a non-intervening God, but I don't know that one exists.
2. I believe in free will and because of it, God does not intervene.
3. I believe that Jesus was not divine, had a positive message and I try to follow his teachings.
4. I understand that the Bible is part allegory, part history, part wisdom and part evil and not divinely inspired.

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?

Actually, though the salvific nature of Jesus' death that's claimed by most Christians is totally without philosophic foundation (you can't achieve salvation through someone else dying for your lack of repentance), since both Jesus and John the Baptist taught as a team on the Jordan River that salvation was achieved through repentance; some scholars are now claiming that the early Jewish followers of Jesus believed in a spiritual, not a bodily resurrection. Jesus (the lamb) dying for our sins is nothing but human sacrifice--as dirty a concept as it sounds.

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

Nice post - I'm currently reading the New Testament and so far it's not looking to me like the supernatural claims that are so strongly emphasized by Christians today are really what's meant to be most important.

Most Christians today, particularly fundamentalist Christians emphasize Paul. Christ is the ultimate word of authority they emphasize instead of Jesus.

I know I need to learn a lot more about the tradition but I don't read the talk about heaven, hell, raised from the dead ect. the way conventional thought does. When I read Buddha's words I don't understand Mara to be some literal evil person. A lot of Buddhists would agree that Mara just stands for temptation, sin, and an impure way of life.
So when I read that those who reject Jesus will be cast into hell, I understand that to mean that you will be screwed here in this world in one way or another if you don't follow his teachings. I don't understand it to mean that God will punish you like an abusive parent if you don't believe that Jesus is God. I guess that's just me though.

If there is a God, would It want to listen to that suffering for all eternity. It's the vision of sadistic, vindictive men. I believe that if there is a hereafter, that we will judge ourselves bathed in the undeniable light of Truth. If we can't stand the thought of who we were, the suffering we caused and the way we wasted our lives, we will have the humane option of oblivion.

The only thing between deist and christian i see conflicting is deist dont believe God intervenes. Christians do. Unless there are different types of deists?

Deism is not as widespread in beliefs as Christianity is. If anything, there are many different types of Christians. Some Christians do not believe God intervenes because of free will, just like Deists.

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? People get caught up in the "all or nothing" position and it is just ridiculous. Of course, these are the same people that decided God does not do any harm or evil, so they came up with the scapegoat idea of Satan as the devil.

Yes, or the idea that the Son of God can be a human sacrifice for the sins that we let the Devil make us do.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
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
I don't have a problem with the term Christian Deist at all. I might well describe myself that way.
Deism is a theological philosophy. That's it. Christianity has that, but it also has moral and cultural elements. I was born and raised Christian. Lots of my cultural and moral beliefs came from it. Realizing that the theology was irrational didn't change all of that. Therefore I am a Christian Deist.
As a deist I have no trouble dumping the irrational parts of the culture and morality when they conflict with stuff I consider better, nor do I justify bad behavior by saying "God says". But nobody can credibly deny that I am a Christian deist.
Tom
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I don't have a problem with the term Christian Deist at all. I might well describe myself that way.
Deism is a theological philosophy. That's it. Christianity has that, but it also has moral and cultural elements. I was born and raised Christian. Lots of my cultural and moral beliefs came from it. Realizing that the theology was irrational didn't change all of that. Therefore I am a Christian Deist.
As a deist I have no trouble dumping the irrational parts of the culture and morality when they conflict with stuff I consider better, nor do I justify bad behavior by saying "God says". But nobody can credibly deny that I am a Christian deist.
Tom

But that only creates unnecessary confusion. If someone said they were and Islamic deist, they'd need to do even more e'splainin' and qualifying than a Christian deist, and for what? Most people are going to see the gross conflict immediately. I believe in a naturally derived moral code, which I think fits best with deism, but I don't append it to the name, since while they may fit, one isn't dependent on the other. It works equally well with atheism. The only qualifier I believe we should use with theological positions is whatever shows the degree of certainty about it, like agnostic-deist or strong-atheist. Those should be used with religions too, but then they'd all be strong I guess--or your faith would be thought weak.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
To add a bit to my post.
I believe that there are a lot more deists out there than show up in public statistics.
I believe that millions, possibly billions, of the people who go to church, mosque, temple, or whatever, have come to the conclusion that the theology is goofy fiction. But the community is more important to them than overt honesty. So they say "There is no God but Allah", or "Jesus is my personal Saviour", or whatever the community expects to hear.
Even when they don't believe it.
Believing in God, but not religion, is more common than statistics will show. Because the social punishment for saying so is painful and unnecessary.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
But that only creates unnecessary confusion. If someone said they were and Islamic deist, they'd need to do even more e'splainin' and qualifying than a Christian deist, and for what?

Because truth is often confusing.
Especially when the subject is important, but has no objective data to clear it up.
Tom
 
Last edited:

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Many, if not most, believe in free will.

I don't.
I see free will as an illusion, based on our inability to understand our motivations. Claiming that God does or decides things to protect this supernatural thing makes deism rather theistic.
Tom
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
To add a bit to my post.
I believe that there are a lot more deists out there than show up in public statistics.
I believe that millions, possibly billions, of the people who go to church, mosque, temple, or whatever, have come to the conclusion that the theology is goofy fiction. But the community is more important to them than overt honesty. So they say "There is no God but Allah", or "Jesus is my personal Saviour", or whatever the community expects to hear.
Even when they don't believe it.
Believing in God, but not religion, is more common than statistics will show. Because the social punishment for saying so is painful and unnecessary.
Tom

Yeah, but being a hypocrite is one thing, making the jump to God being hands off it very much another. We just aren't raised to think that way. Most people withdraw from their beliefs into nihilistic materialism or some form of rebellion without a cause. With Truth taking a beating all around them, they just don't see the importance.

Because truth is often confusing.

Exactly. And we don't clarify things by jumbling them up more. Look at morality. We've been sweeping everything under that rug for eons, to the point where people can't tell good from bad so they just throw up their hands. Morality is simple and deals only with our interactions--or should--and thus because of that, it must be universal.. Virtue is individually determined behavior.

I don't.
I see free will as an illusion, based on our inability to understand our motivations. Claiming that God does or decides things to protect this supernatural thing makes deism rather theistic.
Tom

What? If deism is correct, then God made the natural, rational universe for one purpose alone, as a stage to exercise our free will. Being omnipotent, It could have done anything else instantly.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I don't believe this.
You are trying to make deism into a religion.
Tom

If by religion you mean a church-like organization, hardly. But if you mean a religious, reasoned philosophy, then yes. There's reason behind what I said, but do you ask about it, no. You make a leap of faith to a bogus judgement.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If by religion you mean a church-like organization, hardly. But if you mean a religious, reasoned philosophy, then yes. There's reason behind what I said, but do you ask about it, no. You make a leap of faith to a bogus judgement.

I've read many of your posts.
I don't agree with much of what you believe.
What I mean by religion is asserting that unprovable notions, like free will, are true despite having no evidence to contradict the empirical reality.
Tom
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I've read many of your posts.
I don't agree with much of what you believe.
What I mean by religion is asserting that unprovable notions, like free will, are true despite having no evidence to contradict the empirical reality.
Tom

You have evidence that supports determinism as an empirical reality, sort of like an atheistic version of the Book of Life? But I can see it's advantages, nothings your fault so you can do what you want. There've always been people working their asses off to justify that, like with subjective morality. Try starting it from the other end.
 
Top