• 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!

Jesus vs. Christ vs. Deism ?

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
People talk about the moral teachings of Jesus. What are they and how are they justified? How do you reconcile thinking of God in biblical terms, with a laissez-faire God that doesn't interact or violate the natural laws of the universe? If nothing else, the Bible is thus reduced to its human authorship, with all the potential for malfeasance and misperception over 2000 years which that implies.

"Christ" is Greek for the messiah or anointed one. How was he chosen? How do you reconcile the fact that the word has unavoidably taken on divine son of God connotations? Do you feel the need for continually qualifying what "Christian-Deist" doesn't mean, or do feelings determine your beliefs?

Where is the evidence for (or proof that) the existence of God can be determined through reason and observation as claimed by so called "modern" deists? In the apparent complete absence of such evidence, much less proof, how can we make any statement about God without the preface, "IF God exists....."? Can we even talk about God beyond speculation about It's motivations?
 

Oldsoul

Member
a laissez-faire God that doesn't interact or violate the natural laws of the universe?

70e73af75be4e3fbb4b8bbd269376186.jpg


^^^^
Ahh .. this reference. .

This is what comes to mind when most people think of God.

See those strings in the image..
Cut them
^^^
This should give you a new perspective.

God represents the source of unconditional love..
~>Not control.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
70e73af75be4e3fbb4b8bbd269376186.jpg


^^^^
Ahh .. this reference. .

This is what comes to mind when most people think of God.

See those strings in the image..
Cut them
^^^
This should give you a new perspective.

That's exactly what a non-interactive God is, stringless--which is why It (God) must remain unknown, to maintain our free will...the purpose of the universe. Control is exercised by men and their invented religions which enable that control.

(BTW, that image didn't show until I hit "reply".)

God represents the source of unconditional love..
~>Not control.

I never said anything about control, our free will represents just the opposite. And we don't even know if God exists. If It does, it must be the spiritual embodiment of Truth, one aspect of which would be love (along with knowledge, justice and beauty).
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
People talk about the moral teachings of Jesus. What are they and how are they justified? How do you reconcile thinking of God in biblical terms, with a laissez-faire God that doesn't interact or violate the natural laws of the universe? If nothing else, the Bible is thus reduced to its human authorship, with all the potential for malfeasance and misperception over 2000 years which that implies.

"Christ" is Greek for the messiah or anointed one. How was he chosen? How do you reconcile the fact that the word has unavoidably taken on divine son of God connotations? Do you feel the need for continually qualifying what "Christian-Deist" doesn't mean, or do feelings determine your beliefs?

Where is the evidence for (or proof that) the existence of God can be determined through reason and observation as claimed by so called "modern" deists? In the apparent complete absence of such evidence, much less proof, how can we make any statement about God without the preface, "IF God exists....."? Can we even talk about God beyond speculation about It's motivations?

No. God is an experience. How does one believe in a god that does nothing but created the world? Thats like a mother giving birth and standing on the outside without helping that child grow. I never understood the deist perspective.

Either or talking about god as if he exists is like talking about a The Terminator as if he exists and debating his existence and trying to find evidence in it. Doesnt make sense other than gaining knowledge or curiousity even.

Whats a Christo-deist?
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
No. God is an experience. How does one believe in a god that does nothing but created the world?

God (if It exists) would only care to see how we react to our possession of free will. If we even had a hint that God existed, that free will, and our test here, would be nullified. IOW, it's completely irrelevant if we believe in God or not, or even think of the possibility or not. The only thing that matters is what we do with our lives, how well we pursue the Truth (knowledge, justice, love and beauty). That's the only true "religion", if you will. Truth, the only true religion. Ironic in'it, and beautiful in its simplicity.

There's only one rule, don't lie, especially to yourself. The lies used as justifications for supporting a greater cause (more often than not, one's own desires), outnumber the rest 9 trillion to one.

Thats like a mother giving birth and standing on the outside without helping that child grow. I never understood the deist perspective.

What's the number one rule in the pursuit of the Truth? Don't lie, especially to yourself, and that includes rationalizations in a futile to "support a greater good". Those lies outnumber all the others 9 trillion to one.

That's because there no possible analogy for a laissez-faire divinity in this natural world.

Either or talking about god as if he exists is like talking about a The Terminator as if he exists and debating his existence and trying to find evidence in it. Doesnt make sense other than gaining knowledge or curiousity even.

Terminator, mother, the same rule about analogies applies, even less so in that case. There is no evidence at all for a terminator--but there is a magnificently well-balance natural universe which begs the question about its genesis. You're basically equating a fictional movie having no claim on reality, with the universe. Yeah some directors may seem like gods (Kubrick), and some may even think they are (Tarantino), but in the end, they all still end up food for worms like the rest of us.

Whats a Christo-deist?

It's one step up from a Jesus deist--a deist who claims that Jesus had a worthwhile moral philosophy. A Christian or Christo-deist is one who believes in the supernatural elements of Christianity, which is completely contradictory with deism. There's no real way to separate the two anyway, at this point, because all we have left is some scant narratives biased by those supernatural elements, including their supernatural revelations.
 
Last edited:

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
It's one step up from a Jesus deist--a deist who claims that Jesus had a worthwhile moral philosophy. A Christian or Christo-deist is one who believes in the supernatural elements of Christianity, which is completely contradictory with deism. There's no real way to separate the two anyway, at this point, because all we have left is some scant narratives biased by those supernatural elements, including their supernatural revelations.

Speak for yourself, as that is merely your opinion. I am a Christian Deist and I definitely do not believe in any supernatural elements.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Speak for yourself, as that is merely your opinion. I am a Christian Deist and I definitely do not believe in any supernatural elements.

Then you're redefining Christianity. If you're going to "edit" definitions (and theology), you need to openly quality what you're doing. Even if there were 1 million "Christian"-deists :rolleyes:, that would still just be a micro-fraction of a percent of the whole, and would in fact actually be much less than that. As if things weren't confused enough, or maybe that's the point. Next thing there's gonna be Christian-atheists.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Then you're redefining Christianity. If you're going to "edit" definitions (and theology), you need to openly quality what you're doing. Even if there were 1 million "Christian"-deists :rolleyes:, that would still just be a micro-fraction of a percent of the whole, and would in fact actually be much less than that. As if things weren't confused enough, or maybe that's the point. Next thing there's gonna be Christian-atheists.

Nope, and I have been over this.

***YOU*** just don't like the concept of Christian Deism and are adamantly against it. You have been very outspoken about it on these forums. Fortunately you don't get to tell us what our beliefs are, can/can't be, or what is "true theology." :cool:
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Nope, and I have been over this.

***YOU*** just don't like the concept of Christian Deism and are adamantly against it. You have been very outspoken about it on these forums. Fortunately you don't get to tell us what our beliefs are, can/can't be, or what is "true theology." :cool:

You say "outspoken" like it's a bad thing. And yes, ***I've*** always said I don't like Christianity, mainly because it's a revealed, supernatural religion which continues its history of being manipulated for purposes other than the pursuit of the Truth. But my objection to what you're doing is that, as I said, you're attempting to redefine it as something that at the very least is contradictory and confusing--to define it as not being founded on revelation and the supernatural, which it was and is, wherever you look. Jesus is one thing, a man essential subsumed by man-made history. Who or whatever he was has no apparent resemblance to the biblical, redacted myth that has been passed down to us; and he most certainly didn't believe in a non-intervening God. In fact, if any of what we have about him is true, he died because of his faith in the exact opposite. Aye, and there's the rub.

I'm merely putting this information out there so that others to make an informed decision from a balanced set of information--the foremost bit of which is to look up the definition of Christianity. That isn't my doing, and it's not something you can undo.
 
Last edited:

Ralphg

Member
"Christ" is Greek for the messiah or anointed one. How was he chosen?

I've quoted only this piece since this is my forté, the rest I'll leave up to others.

To explain the process of chosing a 'messenger' (I'm not sure if this goes for Christ Himself too but since I'm a 'messenger' I can tell you how it works on that level) also see the picture below. All the deities you see in there (it could have been another picture but I want to explain and show you that it involves all deities) must 'agree' or 'take knowledge of' the fact that 'a messenger has been send'.

The exact job of the 'messenger' is not known to all deities and they have to (or will) threat it as 'normal' as possible. So for example the deity responsible for bringing the (soul of...?) the 'messenger' to earth simply brings it to earth without further questioning about it.

In my case there was a deity (a 'Mother' in this case) that had a 'special' 'work-process' for cases like me. She said that she normally is in charge of deciding how many children a human will get while being on earth but in my case she had to say to me "If you shoot, shoot and hit".
During a extensive vision when the subject (messenger) is at a very young age (around it's physical birth) all deities are being seen by the mind's eye of the subject. The deities 'speak' a few sentences in combination with what the subject is seeing. For example I've seen myself dancing in socalled 'witches-circles' a couple of times and I have seen a couple of Dragons (fire breathing Golden Dragon and Green-Silver Dragon known as 'the Judge') and so on.

The reason a messenger is being send has probably to do with what is 'going on' on earth. In my case it's probably the fast technological development and the fact life started to 'leave' the Earth (the first space-travelling occured a few years before I was physically born) is the reason I am what I am. Some deities see this as a 'pivot'-point and wonder if they should still continue 'working' in this Universe, leave it or ask for 'extra help'. For examle the deity responsible for bringing 'souls' to the appropiate place (a human body on earth) was wondering if he/she had to start bringing 'souls' to places outside the planet Earth in the near future.

I-Attend-the-Global-Association-of-World-Deities-Pancake-Breakfast.jpg
 
Last edited:

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Not only is this not about the topic, you appear to be focusing on propagating more, new, hearsay mythology. Most of those people are working in politics now, which had at one time split off from religion, but may be trying to reintegrate with it--the supernatural is much easier to sell there.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
A Christian or Christo-deist is one who believes in the supernatural elements of Christianity, which is completely contradictory with deism.
You say "outspoken" like it's a bad thing. And yes, ***I've*** always said I don't like Christianity, mainly because it's a revealed, supernatural religion which continues its history of being manipulated for purposes other than the pursuit of the Truth. But my objection to what you're doing is that, as I said, you're attempting to redefine it as something that at the very least is contradictory and confusing--to define it as not being founded on revelation and the supernatural, which it was and is, wherever you look. Jesus is one thing, a man essential subsumed by man-made history. Who or whatever he was has no apparent resemblance to the biblical, redacted myth that has been passed down to us; and he most certainly didn't believe in a non-intervening God. In fact, if any of what we have about him is true, he died because of his faith in the exact opposite. Aye, and there's the rub.

I'm merely putting this information out there so that others to make an informed decision from a balanced set of information--the foremost bit of which is to look up the definition of Christianity. That isn't my doing, and it's not something you can undo.

Then you need to make clear that your propaganda is merely your opinion, and nothing more. I have already explained in the Deism DIR what Christian Deism means for me, and it works perfectly within that explanation. Lastly, I don't need to look up the definition of Christianity...I was Baptist for 30 years.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Then you need to make clear that your propaganda is merely your opinion, and nothing more. I have already explained in the Deism DIR what Christian Deism means for me, and it works perfectly within that explanation.

My "propaganda" is merely pointing out two facts:

Christianity, as it is promoted and understood by 99%+ of Christians, is founded on belief in supernatural events and divine intervention, with nothing but hearsay as evidence. Just read the Apostle's Creed.

Supernatural intervention directly contradicts the laissez-faire God of deism--by definition, not opinion. And, btw, the only feasible reason for God being completely hands off, is maintaining our free will.

If you can get a major contradiction to work for you, it's still a contradiction; self-defined, subjective, "Neo Deist" label or otherwise.

Lastly, I don't need to look up the definition of Christianity...I was Baptist for 30 years.

??? Do Baptists believe in a non-intervening God? I don't think so. What's your point?
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
My "propaganda" is merely pointing out two facts:

Christianity, as it is promoted and understood by 99%+ of Christians, is founded on belief in supernatural events and divine intervention, with nothing but hearsay as evidence.

Yes, but being understood and actually believing it are two different things. There is a reason why church attendance has dropped drastically in the last 50 years while liberal and/or alternative denominations (especially non-denominational) has seen such an increase. People are not blindly accepting the crap that has been preached for centuries. Welcome to the modern, free thinking world.

Supernatural intervention directly contradicts the laissez-faire God of deism--by definition, not opinion.

That is your definition of God. While I do not believe in divine intervention, it has nothing to do with a laissez-faire theory.

And, btw, the only feasible reason for God being completely hands off, is maintaining our free will.

Duh! I have always said that, so it's not like you are pointing out something new to me. Besides, free will answers the previous point. Why doesn't God intervene? Free will...His gift to us. My theory.

If you can get a major contradiction to work for you, it's still a contradiction; self-defined, subjective, "Neo Deist" label or otherwise.

It works just fine, thanks. The world is subjective, based on the perception of the eye of the beholder. :D

??? Do Baptists believe in a non-intervening God? I don't think so. What's your point?

My point is I don't need you to tell me what a traditional definition of Christianity is. Times have changed. Labels get updated...as do definitions. Or they simply expand.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
That is your definition of God. While I do not believe in divine intervention, it has nothing to do with a laissez-faire theory.

I said Christianity was contradictory with a laissez-faire God, which is the deist definition/position, not theory.


Duh! I have always said that, so it's not like you are pointing out something new to me. Besides, free will answers the previous point. Why doesn't God intervene? Free will...His gift to us. My theory.

No need to get snarky, I believe that came along long before both of us. The only point to be made here is that God's intervention via Christian (etc) revelation and supernatural influence contradicts deism--unless we redefine deism.

It works just fine, thanks. The world is subjective, based on the perception of the eye of the beholder. :D

Which would make morality subjective, not to mention the Moon only shining on those who believe in it.

My point is I don't need you to tell me what a traditional definition of Christianity is. Times have changed. Labels get updated...as do definitions. Or they simply expand.

Good luck with that, particularly if you, as you're advocating, try to make them subjective.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Revealed gods can be virtually disproven (massive evidence against vs none for). The only question is where the universe was created or not.
Do you consider the possibility of non-dualist pantheism (God and creation are not-two); God being the core and consciousness in all of us? And that we are striving to return to that Oneness?
 
Top