I Don't Know if I'm a Deist

[Slide]

I left Christianity in August. I spent 18 years as a Southern Baptist, and 6 thereafter as an undeclared Christian. I got to the point where I no longer believed in the infallible nature of the Bible, as I could not reconcile God as a hostile being in the Old Testament and a benevolent being in the New Testament. After I reviewed how the Bible was compiled, the final nail was driven into that coffin.

That having been said, there is a great deal in the Bible about the person of Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus existed, and I believe he may very well have been the son of a heavenly father. I have seen many things in my life that would lead me to that conclusion. Therefore, I eschew Christianity and other formal religions, but I believe in the person of Jesus Christ.

I'm still very confused, but the only consistency in the Bible seems to be that surrounding the person of Christ. As to whether the rest of Scripture is trustworthy, I don't know. The majority of the New Testament was written by Paul, and seems to be mostly his opinion. I believe Jesus was a man of power, grace, and love, but he also spoke of an outer darkness for those who do evil.

Therefore, I do believe in good and evil, but I personally believe those born in their right mind will know the difference by default, given their conscience. I also believe that is why it is such a great evil to confuse the conscience of a child, because they will then not be able to discern good and evil properly for themselves. As for Christ's statement that "I and the Father are one," he had already said his father was heavenly, so the only "blasphemy" he committed was in reaffirming that he had come from his father (sharing the same "flesh" or DNA, so to speak).

This has been going through my head lately, and I don't know if any of it makes sense.

 

[George-ananda]

I like your thoughts. Get yourself into a more liberal religious position would be my recommendation. Don't deny yourself the joy of the Good.

 

[psychoslice]

Could I just say, that you don't have to label yourself anything, be original, be yourself, in fact be your own religion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sure, it makes sense. There's even a word for it: Jesuism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Slide]

Sure, it makes sense. There's even a word for it: Jesuism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, thank you. I figured there had to be a name for such a philosophy. This is exactly it.

 

[Bunyip]

I can only speak for myself, but whether or not I identify as deist, pantheist or atheist is pretty much irrelevant. I don't think that any of those positions demand faith - they are just ways of looking at the universe. Faith in a personal god is essentially what my atheism relates to, not other ways of looking at and considering the universe.

 

[Deadtroopers]

I left Christianity in August. I spent 18 years as a Southern Baptist, and 6 thereafter as an undeclared Christian. I got to the point where I no longer believed in the infallible nature of the Bible, as I could not reconcile God as a hostile being in the Old Testament and a benevolent being in the New Testament. After I reviewed how the Bible was compiled, the final nail was driven into that coffin.

That having been said, there is a great deal in the Bible about the person of Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus existed, and I believe he may very well have been the son of a heavenly father. I have seen many things in my life that would lead me to that conclusion. Therefore, I eschew Christianity and other formal religions, but I believe in the person of Jesus Christ.

I'm still very confused, but the only consistency in the Bible seems to be that surrounding the person of Christ. As to whether the rest of Scripture is trustworthy, I don't know. The majority of the New Testament was written by Paul, and seems to be mostly his opinion. I believe Jesus was a man of power, grace, and love, but he also spoke of an outer darkness for those who do evil.

Therefore, I do believe in good and evil, but I personally believe those born in their right mind will know the difference by default, given their conscience. I also believe that is why it is such a great evil to confuse the conscience of a child, because they will then not be able to discern good and evil properly for themselves. As for Christ's statement that "I and the Father are one," he had already said his father was heavenly, so the only "blasphemy" he committed was in reaffirming that he had come from his father (sharing the same "flesh" or DNA, so to speak).

This has been going through my head lately, and I don't know if any of it makes sense.

You seem to be holding to Marcion's position. Which is one of the more, if not the most, sensible of the Christianities. As for any of it making sense; Paul wrote that what he believed was folly to the world; since the Enlightenment most, if not all, Christianities have lost any basis in truth. The Jesus your still holding out for, was he a god incarnate? Was he crucified and resurrected? These were once reasonable faith positions; they are are unfortunately no longer. See The Myth of God Incarnate, John Hick ed. SCM, 1977/1993 and After Christianity, Daphne Hampson, SCM 1996/2003. Whether Jesus was a real person is moot: the only records we have are poisoned with the supernatural and created out of Old Testament material. Paul and the other first century epistles concentrate solely on a cosmic Christ. Who is an hallucination; a voice in their heads. This was probably an indication they were schizotypal personalities (NOT nutters); but possibly it might mean that what, for want of a another term, we might call God is an emergent property of human neurology. Like the human conscious. When you strip out cultural correlates and human misunderstandings; the message seems pretty consistent over time and space. If God then God must be an entirely natural, repeateble phenomena;a part of reality and what it is to be human. When you have eliminated the impossible; whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth. I think that is the last likely place for God and the only ground you could legitimately build a faith for the third millenium. Provided that is not falsified also; but I don't think that likely anytime soon.

 

[oldbadger]

....................... there is a great deal in the Bible about the person of Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus existed, and I believe he may very well have been the son of a heavenly father. I have seen many things in my life that would lead me to that conclusion. Therefore, I eschew Christianity and other formal religions, but I believe in the person of Jesus Christ.

I was interested in all of your post, but the above was especially interesting.
Yep. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath-water.

 

[Deidre]

Why would only one part of the Bible be reliable, and not the rest? If you disbelieve in a lot of it, why do you believe in any of the NT? What caused me to depart from Christianity, was that the ENTIRE Bible most likely, is bunk. A fabricated man made story, to control people. (not all people, but those the Bible suggests for Christians to oppress)

Jesus might have existed, and I have a feeling he did, personally. But, the divinity ‘story’ that was assigned to him, has no objective evidence, and seems like a story designed to set Christianity apart from other religions.

I’m a Deist. I hope you choose to explore it. I find a lot of peace here.

 

[Slide]

Why would only one part of the Bible be reliable, and not the rest? If you disbelieve in a lot of it, why do you believe in any of the NT? What caused me to depart from Christianity, was that the ENTIRE Bible most likely, is bunk. A fabricated man made story, to control people. (not all people, but those the Bible suggests for Christians to oppress)

Jesus might have existed, and I have a feeling he did, personally. But, the divinity ‘story’ that was assigned to him, has no objective evidence, and seems like a story designed to set Christianity apart from other religions.

I’m a Deist. I hope you choose to explore it. I find a lot of peace here.

There is historical evidence outside the Bible for Jesus. There is not historical evidence outside the Bible for all of the Bible, so I would only ascribe to that which is confirmed and/or logical for living (i.e., "do unto others...").

 

[Jainarayan]

You might consider the Jefferson Bible and The Gospel of Thomas The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- The Gnostic Society Library The Jefferson Bible was created by Thomas Jefferson by literally cutting and pasting from the four gospels, putting the verses into chronological order or as best as he could get it, and eliminating any references to divinity and miracles. Between those two works you have the sayings and teachings of Jesus, and nothing else.

 

[Deidre]

There is historical evidence outside the Bible for Jesus.

Secular evidence?

 

[Slide]

Secular evidence?

The writings of Flavius Josephus, for instance. He was a Romano-Jewish scholar who was not a Christian and had no reason to support claims of Jesus. He was born in 37 AD, and wrote about Jesus with confirmation of his crucifixion and "uprising" against the Roman and Jewish leadership. Some of what he said confirms parts of the Gospels.

 

[Deidre]

The writings of Flavius Josephus, for instance. He was a Romano-Jewish scholar who was not a Christian and had no reason to support claims of Jesus. He was born in 37 AD, and wrote about Jesus with confirmation of his crucifixion and "uprising" against the Roman and Jewish leadership. Some of what he said confirms parts of the Gospels.

Sometimes I wonder if much of that is speculative, meaning…was it the ‘’same’’ Jesus we speak of?

At any rate, I can believe that Jesus existed, without the need to attach the NT ‘story’ to him, anymore. I used to struggle with that.

Do you struggle with that end of it, at all?

 

[Erock13]

The Testimonium Flavinium is highly contested, to say the least, although I do agree that it is likely that there was at least some person the Jesus mythology is based upon. For one thing, note the date of Josephus is after the alleged death of Jesus, so by the time he's writing about Jesus, a good bit of time has passed. Again, I agree that there was likely a real person at the core of this narrative, but you cannot just take that, even with the Testimonium Flavianium, and go with "son of the heavenly father." You need much more to go on, which are those "things" you've "seen" in your life. I'd wager that whatever those are, that they are the prime reasons you believe as you do instead of what any ancient historian has to say.

 

[Slide]

I do struggle quite a bit with the belief in Jesus. I was confused as a Christian, and I'm still confused, because I haven't looked at the evidence for and against a deity and/or Jesus (or any historical religious figure). My personal experiences do tend to push me toward a belief in the divine, but then again, I've also seen where the divine failed me. In my mind, the truth is out there, but it shouldn't be so damn difficult to find.

 

[Bunyip]

The writings of Flavius Josephus, for instance. He was a Romano-Jewish scholar who was not a Christian and had no reason to support claims of Jesus. He was born in 37 AD, and wrote about Jesus with confirmation of his crucifixion and "uprising" against the Roman and Jewish leadership. Some of what he said confirms parts of the Gospels.

Don't forget that Josephus was not only a Jew, but remained one - he rejected the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah. The references to Jesus are broadly accepted by scholars to be a later interpolation.

 

[Deidre]

I do struggle quite a bit with the belief in Jesus. I was confused as a Christian, and I'm still confused, because I haven't looked at the evidence for and against a deity and/or Jesus (or any historical religious figure). My personal experiences do tend to push me toward a belief in the divine, but then again, I've also seen where the divine failed me. In my mind, the truth is out there, but it shouldn't be so damn difficult to find.

There will never be (most likely) any verifiable, objective evidence to support the existence of a deity. Your beliefs are just that, beliefs. It's okay to believe, without evidence.

 

[Deadtroopers]

The references to a Jesus in Josephus are to Jesus ben Damneus, whose brother James was judicially murdered by the Jewish High Priest when for a short period Judea had no Roman Prefect. Coincidence of names, wishful thinking and sloppy reading created a marginal note 'who was the Christ' which later became incorporated in the text.

See Carrier, Richard, 'Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpololation in Josephus, Jewish Antiqities 20.200, Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (Winter 2012), pp. 489-54.

For the historicity or otherwise of Jesus see Carrier, Richard On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix, 2014.

 

[Neo Deist]

Secular evidence?

There are a few mentionings of Jesus outside of the Bible. However, none of them say anything about miracles, divinity, resurrection, etc. They mostly affirm that he lived in the region, and was killed by the Roman Empire via crucifixion. That's it.

As a deist, I have no problems believing that a man named Jesus lived back then, was a teacher and went against the Jewish governing body. He might have been a rabble rouser and trying to get Jews to revolt against the Roman Empire, which would explain why he was crucified. This concept of the Jews demanding he be crucified by the Romans is drivel.

The Romans were not subject to the Jews in any shape or form. Jews don't "demand" anything of the ruling military authority that could squash you or drag you away in the middle of the day to be executed, if they saw fit to do so. Pontius Pilate was a rather cruel "governor" and was actually ousted from his station for his brutality, and wound up killing himself during the reign of Emperor Caligula.

If you want further proof that the Gospels are drivel, look at Matthew 28:11-15. I find it interesting that the Roman tomb guards met with the Jewish high priests, they had a PRIVATE conversation about planting a conspiracy theory, yet the Book of Matthew talks about that meeting and conversation as if it were public knowledge. What, did Matthew have a wiretap or something...bah!