Jump to content

Deism


Guest billmc

Recommended Posts

Guest billmc

2. We believe everything we need to know of God can be found in the universe itself.

 

Please notice that this says "everything that we need to know", not "everything that can be known" or "we can know everything." Deism admits that we are essentially just beginning our human journey, that we are just beginning to understand and relate to God and the universe. What can we know about God just from considering the universe? To me, it means that God has created a universe that has lead to life, to consciousness, to true appreciation of being. Yes, we do have a life and death cycle in the universe, that can no more be denied than the reality of pain and suffering. Nevertheless, there is an order and a beauty in the universe that leads to higher forms of life, higher forms of consciousness. As Carl Sagan used to say, "We are the universe contemplating itself." Granted, "the universe" is pretty all-encompassing, so, yes, it does also hold books, traditions, religions, and people that we might consider to be sacred or reflective of God. But Positive Deism posits that there is no necessary "mediator" between us and our Creator. From my perspective as a Christian Deist, certainly I see great wisdom in most of the teachings and life of Jesus. I believing in loving God and in loving others, as Jesus taught and lived. That is what makes me a "Christian" deist. But I don't see Jesus as my mediator between me and God in a literal sense, in the sense that if Jesus had never been born, we would never know God or, more inane still, that we would all go to hell. Jesus, for me, didn't bring new revelation. Instead, he tried to open our eyes and ears, to illuminate us to what was already there all along. To me, we don't need revelation, as if God is like the "carbon-based lifeforms" on Star Trek, withholding needed or required information. We need enlightenment or illumination or consciousness to the truth of Reality that has always been with us. Sure, books, religions, and prophets can be helpful along the way for some as guides to illumination and enlightenment. But they can also hold us back if we allow ourselves to create "idols" out of them and worship them instead of God who is the ultimate Source and Reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

3. We believe God does not act in the universe in ways that contradict natural law, but do not deny the possibility.

 

This particular statement is one which is about 80/20 for me. As I do believe that God is the Source of Life and Being in the universe, yes, I believe God built into the structure of the universe what we call natural laws to govern or guide it. In fact, as a child, when I gazed up at the heavens and at the wonder of nature around me, I instinctively felt that Someone made all of this. There was a pattern and a rhythm to things, an order. So when I first encountered the Christian notions of Jesus and his miracles in Vacation Bible School, I found it somewhat odd that Jesus violated the natural laws in order to "prove" that he was God. Why would God create all these natural laws to prevent the universe from melting down into chaos and then suspend them? And, furthermore, if he did it back in the Bible days, why doesn't he do it now? Why couldn't Christians, who claimed to have the Spirit of Christ in them, walk on water? raise the dead? heal the sick? restore the blind and lame? feed multitudes with a minimum of resources?

 

As I found a new way to interpret my Christian faith in a more progressive vein, I came to believe that these "miracles" were overlaid on the character of Jesus by the early church in order to keep his story alive. To me, that makes sense. I believe in what Marcus Borg calls "Divine Consistency", that the way God acts now is the way God acted "back then". Unlike my Dispensationalist brothers and sisters, I don't believe there was ever an "Age of Miracles".

 

At the same time, I cannot deny that weird things do occur in this universe, things which I certainly can't explain. This goes back to the idea that we, as humans, certainly don't know everything there is to know about God. But I'm reluctant to rely on the "God of the Gaps" theology that is so prevalent in much of Christianity where if we don't understand a thing, "God did it." I would rather just be honest and say that I don't have an explanation or that I don't understand than to claim that God has intervened into reality and broken, bent, or changed the laws of the universe for his own purposes. Yes, God is a mystery to me, much of the time. A mystery worth further exploration. But it is one thing to say that God is a mystery and another to say that God is inconsistent or contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

4. We believe that human beings are capable of having profound experiences of God, but hold that such personal revelations are true only for themselves.

 

This particular belief is, imo, pretty self-explanatory. We humans have always claimed to have experiences of God or gods or the Divine or the Sacred. These experiences can be powerfully inspiring and life-transforming. We can find great depth of meaning in our experiences with the one we call God, even to the extent that we ourselves feel at one with that Oneness. This is, again imo, a good and worthy thing.

 

Atheism tends to mock these experiences as either purely psychological or as maybe caused by some chemical reaction in our brains. I'll grant them that such may well be the case in some cases. But the fruit that is born from many of these profound experiences has often been quite good, it has helped humanity along its way. These profound experiences are probably worth remembering from generation to generation, especially when they have bettered humanity and our world.

At the same time, I also believe, as this notion says, that we need to take a critical and reasonable approach to our (and other's) claimed experiences of God. Do claimed experiences lead to good fruit? Not always. People have claimed "revelations" from God that have brought harm to humanity and our world. I think such "revelations" need to be closely examined and critiqued in the light of our best reason and our best religious beliefs. This doesn't mean that we go around judging people. But we don't go around validating ever message that supposedly "came from on high" either. Our Creator has given us brains, reason, and a good sense of morality. These are tools that we can use to determine for ourselves the "truth claims" or the validity of revelations that we come across, not only in the religious world, but also in the secular world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

5. We believe that love is the noblest and most important element of human relationships. We embrace fellowship, community, and mutual respect as essential components of life.

 

To me, this concept lines up with Jesus' two "greatest commandments", to love God and to love others. While "survival of the fittest" may have helped us become the dominant life-form on this planet, we have got to get past our religious, cultural, social, sexual, and tribal boundaries in order for humanity to survive. Love, or caring for one another, seems to me to be the most viable way to do this. Therefore, yes, we seek out and embrace fellowship and community. We lift each other up through mutual respect instead of trying to elevate ourselves by pushing others down. Metaphorically, we refuse to go to heaven if we can't bring our relatives, our friends, and the rest of humanity with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

6. We believe in the intrinsic value of life and advocate honesty, prudence, compassion, and justice in our dealings with one another. We believe Deists should advance the human condition within their personal capacity to do so.

 

This point sounds pretty "progressive" to me. Sometimes traditional Christianity can downplay the value of life by refering to the doctrine of original sin or by emphasizing the supposed temporary nature of humans and our world. But it seems to me that life, especially self-conscious forms of life, might be a somewhat rare thing in our universe. And because each of us is unique, we have intrinsic value. The rarer a thing is, the more valuable it seems to be.

 

I also think it is progressive to try to advance the human condition, at least as far as we are able. Someone said, "We didn't inherit the world from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children." I suspect there is a lot of truth in that statement. To me, Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God were very much centered in the value of life and in advancing the human condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

7. We believe people should be free in all aspects of their lives, provided they do not disturb the peace, happiness, or safety of society. We believe in personal responsibility for our actions.

 

This is pretty much the concept that our US constitution was founded on. Freedom coupled with responsibility. Spiritually speaking, this means that I don't blame my actions on my so-called "sinful nature" or on the devil or on living in a "fallen world." Nor to I claim to be assisted by angels or saints. While I can't deny that I am influenced by my background and my culture, I ultimately make my own choices...and I live with the consequences of those choices. I simply don't think we can learn or grow if we live in a predetermined, mechanized universe. Of course, I could be programmed to believe all this. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

8. We believe that religion is a personal matter guided by the dictates of conscience. We endeavor to promote Deism and educate those who are interested, but do not advocate efforts to convert people to Deism.

 

This statement is, like most of the others, self-explanatory. It is difficult to find a deist church or congregation. In fact, there is only one that I know of. We tend to be spread out geographically and if we go to church, it is usually with friends and/or relatives for fellowship/sense of community. We promote deism put do not push it. Many of us have been on the receiving end of the kind of evangelism of institutional religion, especially with some of the accompanying threats or labels that go with their conversion efforts, and we simply don't think people should choose their religion based out of fear or out of social group acceptance/rejection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

9. We believe in the separation of religion and government and hold that Deism should not be used to justify political positions or causes.

 

Sidenote: I found it interesting that when my Sunday School class recently harped that "we need to get America back to being a Christian nation!" and I asked what that meant in practical, real-world terms (i.e. what would a "Christian nation" look like?), no one had a response. They felt that America had, in her past, been a "Christian nation" at some point and that we had now descended into, well, something less than Christianity. So I gently chided, "Was that the Christianity that burned witches in Salem, Massachusetts? Was that the Christianity that kept our black population in slavery? Was that the Christianity that almost wiped out all our Native Americans? Was that the Christianity that didn't allow women to vote and kept them working in factories for mediocre pay?"

 

What did America's past really have to do with Christ?

 

The normal response is that America was founded on Christian principles. This is a blatant falsehood. America was founded upon the notion that all men (including women) are created equal by their Creator and, therefore, have freedom and rights as human beings as long as those freedoms don't violate the freedom of others and serve to better society. The framers of our Constitution spoke of Nature's God, not of the Trinity. They were Deists, not Christians. More on this in a bit. You won't find the mention of Jesus in our founding documents, despite the claims of traditional Christianity that America was founded as a Christian nation. In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli says: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Muslim nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

Despite what some may say, America was not founded on the Christian religion. Where Christians among our founding fathers? Certainly. America is a nation of religious freedom. This includes freedom from religion if citizens so choose.

 

Deism shares with Christianity a belief in God. And many Deists, if not most, consider Jesus to be a wise, ethical teacher of morals and enlightenment. But Deism doesn't force converts or seek sanctioning by the government. The government's role is to protect the rights of individuals of this nation, not to push a particular religion. As Jefferson said, there should be a separation between church and state. Both can exist here compatibily. But they should, imo, stay out of each other's business unless either church or state begin to violate human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

10. We believe these principles should evolve with societal progress and our knowledge of Nature.

 

Deists realize that we are on a human journey and that we grow in understanding as we evolve. Therefore, unlike many conservative religions or philosophies that insist that truth is to be found only in the past, we want to stay open to further learning, further growth. The only way to do this is to be humble about what we claim to know and to be open-minded to new knowledge and experiences. So even this concepts, unlike the 10 Commandments, are not carved in stone. We know that, as Paul the apostle alluded to, we see through a glass darkly. We are only at the beginning of the human experience...if we don't destroy ourselves. So we need to leave room for expansion and for evolution.

 

This doesn't mean that we disregard everything from the past. We believe in syncretism, in learning from the past and in carrying the best of the past with us as we move into the future. Put in the Christian terms of the UCC, we believe that "God is still speaking" and that there is more truth to come. This encourages us to honor the past, look forward to and work for the future, and enjoy today for all the blessings that it brings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

So what is the difference between a Deist and a Christian Deist, especially since I find resonance with Christian Deism?

 

First, we must understand the difference between Deism and Christianity. Though it is an over-simplification, Christianity in general believes that Jesus was/is God, the Creator of the universe, and that Jesus came to show us how to go to heaven when we die. While Deism believes that Jesus was a good, ethical teacher of wisdom, it rejects the notion that Jesus was/is God. Deism, as a religion, holds to a belief in one God, not a Trinity, and acknowledges that God is not a Christian. And, as a philosophy, Deism is more focused on making this world better for all than in trying to secure a ticket for heaven after we die.

 

So what is it about Christian Deism that makes it different from Deism? Mainly the focus on Jesus' teachings, not as formulas to get us to heaven, but as ways of living together compassionately here on earth. Jesus, for Christian Deists, didn't come to reveal to us how to go to heaven, but reminded us of what was already in our heart all along. God and his kingdom, taught Jesus, is already within us. We simply need to tune into it.

 

Probably the best known Christian Deist is a former Baptist preacher named John Lindell. On John's website, he lists his own Christian Deists beliefs that, for the most part, reflect my own views:

 

1. God created all that exists, including humankind.

 

2. God rules the world through natural laws. Obedience to these laws is life-creative; disobedience to these laws is life-destructive.

 

3. God's laws for humankind are known to every person because these laws are inherent in the design of human nature. It is God's will, or intention, for us to love God and love each other.

 

4. Jesus was a human being who discovered that God's laws are planted like a seed "in the heart" of each person.

 

5. Jesus believed that he had been "anointed" to preach the "gospel" (good news) that the "Kingdom of God" becomes a reality on earth as human beings obey God's basic laws of love for God and each other.

 

6. Jesus taught that causing human suffering or being indifferent toward human suffering are violations of God's laws of love (see parable of the Good Samaritan). A violation of God's law is called "sin."

 

7. Jesus called for people "to repent" (turn away) from sin and "believe in the gospel (good news)" that "the kingdom of God is at hand" on earth as God's laws are obeyed by individuals.

 

8. An individual who is committed to follow God's laws of love will experience "repentance" whenever the individual fails to love. Repentance is the prerequisite for forgiveness.

 

9. By obeying God's laws of love, a person experiences life on a higher level which Jesus described as "abundant" and "eternal."

 

10. God created us as free agents in a free world. We are responsible for our own actions within the limits of our individual abilities and opportunities.

 

11. In a free world, bad things can happen to people by accident or by human intention. God does not intend for bad things to happen but God cannot directly intervene. We must accept the fact that accidents can happen in a free world. We must oppose wrong human intentions.

 

12. Although God cannot directly intervene in human affairs, God may intevene through us as God's agents in creating the "kingdom of God on earth." For example, God can heal through the efforts of physicians and nurses. Each of us should do what we can to create the kingdom of God on earth.

 

13. If we try to live today as God intends for us to live in this world, we can trust God to take care of us beyond this world (as taught by Jesus in his "parable of the talents"). The fact that we have life now through no action of our own is evidence that God has the power to give life. We must recognize our dependence on God for life now and in the future.

 

Bill's closing comments: Okay, I'm done droning on about this subject (and there was much rejoicing). I just wanted to share the "Wisdom Tradition" of Deism and Christian Deism and how this philosophy might integrate well with Progressive Christianity and the Eight Points. Thanks for listening (reading).

 

Namaste,

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most scientists who study religion (anthropologists, evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists and the like) attribute religious thought to a mental foundation in agency: The existence of the universe and events occurring in it have a supernatural agent; i.e. it all just didn't just come about randomly.

 

Deism -- if I understand it and very likely do not -- posits a creative force that created a system (natural laws) then goes off somewhere, i.e. an otiose god. Theism assumes the same creative force, but assumes it stays interested and involved. So, this means that deism (if I understand it) requires two steps (an initial involved creator who then becomes uninvolved) vs theism with one (an involved creator and manager).

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

Deism -- if I understand it and very likely do not -- posits a creative force that created a system (natural laws) then goes off somewhere, i.e. an otiose god. Theism assumes the same creative force, but assumes it stays interested and involved. So, this means that deism (if I understand it) requires two steps (an initial involved creator who then becomes uninvolved) vs theism with one (an involved creator and manager).

 

That's probably been the typical understanding of deism, George. But deism, like most religions and philosophies, changes over time as culture and knowledge grows. I don't at all believe that God is uninvolved with God's creation, but I am still seeking a good analogy or metaphor that reflects my best thoughts on this.

 

But here is what I wrote recently on another forum concerning the "typical understanding" of deism and how my own view is somewhat different:

 

"I’ll grant that Deism has historically held to the external God who has designed the clock of the universe and then walked away to do other God-things. But, imo, this isn’t the best way to conceive of a creator. After all, as parents, we don’t (or shouldn’t) simply conceive children and then abandon them. But neither do we, as parents, micromanage them throughout their lives. There is a dynamic balance to be found.

 

"To me, the universe is “in God.” So there is no where for God to go that we aren’t within him/her. God is pregnant with the world and, as the apostle Paul said, “in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Does a mother “intervene” in the life of the baby inside her? The word doesn’t really apply, does it? But, yes, the mother does share her life with her infant. She influences her baby. Her very DNA is within her baby. They may be two persons, but they are not truly separate. There is a fluid, dynamic relationship going on, something called “life.”

 

"God, it seems to me, is the ultimate source of life. I don’t see God as just the Creator of life, but also as the Sustainer. So as long as life continues, I doubt that God has retired. icon_smile.gif But I don’t think he micromanages either. Instead, his presence in the universe is manifested in his creation, even in us. We, as his image-bearers, join with him in continuing the creation and sustainment of life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

George, I like and appreciate the way you posed the question.

 

As a deist (albeit a Christian one), I like to keep things as simple as I can, but no simpler. I think Einstein said, "Anything that can be put into a nutshell probably belongs there." :) Most deists would say (and I would agree) that what we can know about God is evident in the creation. If this is true, then creation itself tells us that it has lead to conscious life in at least one very small part of the universe (although I don't have a problem whatsoever with the possibility of life elsewhere).

 

Is this life intentional or, as you say, the result of random happenstance? I don't know in an empirical way, because all we have, imo, is the evidence of "God's handiwork", not a journal where God has revealed his mind to us. But many scientists tell us that the odds of life being what it is through random happenstance are too astronomical to be taken seriously. That's the so-called evidence -- we see patterns, we see structure that points to (not proves) some kind of Creator.

 

I'll put it another way, although the metaphor is somewhat crude. I don't know what Beethoven thought when he composed his 5th Symphony. I don't know if he sat down and said, "I will write a symphony today" or if it came to him gradually. I don't know if it took him hours, weeks, or years to get it right. All I know is that when I listen to it, it points to a creator. The notes of the symphony don't *seem* (important word) to be the result of random happenstance, they seem to have been placed where they are. And yet they still require human response in order for us to hear them. I feel much the same about the creation. The notes of creation *seem* to point to a creator. But beyond that, it might be best to be humble about what the Creator is like (versus being dogmatic).

 

How do you see it? Is there intentionality or random happenstance in the universe? Or do you see a blend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

Good answer. Yes, it is not possible to demonstrate intentionality or randomness with empirical evidence. However, given the complexity of the universe and the natural laws, I find it hard to accept that it is the result of a gazillion gazillion random events. As some scientist has pointed out, one minor variation in the formula for gravity and the universe would immediately collapse on itself.

 

Beyond, that, I am much to agnostic to offer a more definitive answer. I am not inclined to accept the common 'intelligent design' model that some embrace. That is a little too close to creationism for my taste. And, it does not explain the many evolutionary flaws (see appendix in humans as an example). I also think it is much to anthropocentric: I don't think we humans are a designer's ultimate goal and exist in our final form.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

Yes, it is not possible to demonstrate intentionality or randomness with empirical evidence. However, given the complexity of the universe and the natural laws, I find it hard to accept that it is the result of a gazillion gazillion random events. As some scientist has pointed out, one minor variation in the formula for gravity and the universe would immediately collapse on itself.

 

Yes, I've heard that also. Interesting stuff. Anthony Flew has some great insight into the DNA portion of this also.

 

Beyond, that, I am much to agnostic to offer a more definitive answer. I am not inclined to accept the common 'intelligent design' model that some embrace. That is a little too close to creationism for my taste. And, it does not explain the many evolutionary flaws (see appendix in humans as an example). I also think it is much to anthropocentric: I don't think we humans are a designer's ultimate goal and exist in our final form.

 

I agree, for the most part. I am not a literal creationist. I don't take Genesis literally.

 

After I posted my initial response to you, I thought of a couple other things I wanted to include (seems to be my modus operandi).

 

1. Deism’s philosophy is really quite simple. It is a lowest-common-denominator philosophy with a great deal of freedom inherent in it. Deists would put it this way, “If you believe in God and use reason to evaluate your beliefs, you’re a deist.” In contradistinction, the three great Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) typically hold to a belief in God and then faith in revelation. In institutional religions, beliefs come from an authoritarian base, usually a prophet (or more than a prophet as found in traditional Christianity) that claims to speak for God.

 

Put a bit more crassly in order to make a point, institutional religion says, “Believe in God and then trust, not yourself, but God as reveal in (insert prophet’s name – Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, Joseph Smith, etc.).” Reason is not much of a factor because one is trusting another person’s experience of God to be true for themselves. Deism trusts in God because of the evidence found in both external nature and internal witness (morals, conscience, intuition, experience).

 

However, at the other end of the spectrum is what some call New Age religion where internal experience is everything and reason is often shut out. People claim to know what they know and will not subject those beliefs or experiences to scrutiny. They had an experience that seemed real to them and they often will not question it. Deism, being quite inclusive, allows for this *as long as* people don’t try to force their own experiences on others. Deists value what many Christians might call “the priesthood of the believer.”

 

For instance, I had what might be considered by some to be a “mystical experience” a little while back. It was wonderful and transformative for me. It helped me to resolve some “cognitive dissonance” that was eating at me. I believe it was an experience of God. BUT I don’t claim that my experience should be normative for everyone. And if it was God (I have no proof), I did not receive a message meant for anyone else other than myself. And rather than claiming that God revealed himself to me (as if he had been holding something back), I would rather say that I became enlightened or that I opened myself up to the experience. For me, my experience confirmed reality to me rather than denied it. So because I believe God to be Real and Reality to be Real and this experience confirmed both, I tend to think it was real. But I could just be crazy. :D

 

2. Lastly (and thankfully much shorter), yes, I believe there is a certain amount of randomness “programmed” into the creation. I am an evolutionist. But I still see God behind it all. And evolution happens because of random happenstance. While evolutionary biologist tells us that 95% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct, still, miracle of miracles, here we are. Why is that? I don’t know. I haven’t been here long enough to know and I’m pretty sure I won’t be here long enough to find out. But I’m not ready to dismiss that, perhaps, God has something to do with it. This doesn't make my view of the universe anthrocentric, just biocentric. ;)

 

Granted, all of our God-notions could just be leftovers of primitive superstition stuck in our simian brains. Maybe it is all random happenstance. But, if so, why are there patterns to such randomness? :lol:

 

Good conversation, George. Thank you. Keep pushing back if you’d like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While evolutionary biologist tells us that 95% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct, still, miracle of miracles, here we are. Why is that? I don’t know. I haven’t been here long enough to know and I’m pretty sure I won’t be here long enough to find out. But I’m not ready to dismiss that, perhaps, God has something to do with it. This doesn't make my view of the universe anthrocentric, just biocentric. ;)

Bill,

 

Oh my, I hope my comments and questions are not taken as "push back." I have no problem with any benign understanding although some are more sensible (the category your ideas are in) than others. Oh yeah, and an explanation not imposed on others (like creationism in schools).

 

FWIW, if persistence of the species is evidence of a special divine status, I think cockroaches and sharks would be at the top of the hierarchy. I have a hunch that if global warming cooks the human species, roaches will still be around :-)

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

George,

 

Oh my, I hope my comments and questions are not taken as "push back."

 

Only in a good way, my friend.

 

…an explanation not imposed on others (like creationism in schools).

 

I agree. The only reason that I wanted to put some “finishing touches” on this thread was, not to proselytize, but to explain that deism need not be thought of as anti-Christian. Deism, like Progressive Christianity, is a wide umbrella and while some forms of deism do attack Christianity (mainly of the conservative, fundamentalist flavor) as being superstition, not all deists are that way. It is, imo, a seeker wisdom traditional.

 

For example, I didn’t go looking for deism. I was having a conversation on another forum one day on how we, as humans, view God and someone, after reading my “heretical” thoughts, said, “You sound like a deist.” I replied, “A what?” So they briefly explained what it was and I looked into it. Much of it made sense to me. But I still liked Jesus and many of his teachings. So I eventually discovered Christian Deism or Natural Christianity which doesn’t make either classical Deists or classical Christians happy with me. C’est la vie. ;) As the great theologian Popeye said, “I yam what I yam!” :)

 

FWIW, if persistence of the species is evidence of a special divine status, I think cockroaches and sharks would be at the top of the hierarchy.

 

Maybe they are if “survivability” is the measuring rod of biocentricity. (I don’t know if “biocentricity” is a word. My spellchecker says that it is not. But what I mean by it is that the universe seems to lean toward or is open to the evolution of life.) In my view, none of what we have or know as the universe was a predetermined, guaranteed outcome. Rather, the possibilities were all there, in the mix so-to-speak.

 

I have a hunch that if global warming cooks the human species, roaches will still be around :-)

 

As do I, George. We, as human beings, have the potential to become great beings. But potential is not a guarantee. We could well destroy ourselves. We won’t kill the planet. Life seems always find a way to go on. But it will, as you wisely warn us, perhaps take another form. Reincarnated as a cockroach? Yech! :unsure:

 

Anyway, George, this thread just reflects one of many alternative "ways of wisdom" that demonstrates that we don't have to choose between hardcore supernatural theism and hardcore atheism. Always good to have a choice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you see it? Is there intentionality or random happenstance in the universe? Or do you see a blend?

Bill,

 

To add a footnote to our discussion, I think I am persuaded by al-Gazilli's (famous Sufi theologian) logic that says: "Everything that began had a cause. The Universe began. Therefore it had a cause."

 

The fact that no empirical proofs exist does not deter physicists, psychologists, linguists, et al. from proposing abstract theories to account what we observe. I think it is fair that theologians do so as well, although some have logical contradictions (like the problem of evil).

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I enjoyed reading this topic. I now consider myself, by some definition, to be a Deist. Since the last post was submitted some time ago I will go in a new direction and simply offer my thoughts after exploring the concepts associated with Deism.

 

Deism offers an attractive alternative to traditional Christianity for me. One of the things about Deism that is attractive to me is the lack of dogma, doctrine, and revealed sacred writings. Those things are what motivated me to seek alternatives to Christianity.

 

Based on logic, reason, intuition and authenticated historical data I have formed an understanding or mental image of the Divine. It isn’t likely my image of the Divine is accurate but I see its purpose more as a way to connect with the sacred rather than a precise depiction of the Divine.

 

I choose to trust that God continues to interact with creation because I see no difference between a non-existent God and one that observes but does not become involved. I don’t accept the concept of predestination meaning that God has a definite plan for each person. I choose to trust that God interacts with creation influentially rather than through direct intervention and therefore does not violate the right of free choice. I choose to accept that God answers prayer and responds influentially when the Divine deems it’s appropriate. I no longer believe there is a literal heaven or hell. I have accepted Marcus Borg's thinking that when we die we simply die into God. I don't know what that might entail but I hope we are aware that we have become part of the presence of God. I am relatively new to Deism so my perceptions are still a work in progress and subject to change without notice.

 

I am undecided about Jesus. I had reached the point where the evidence I’d encountered convinced me that Jesus was more than likely a myth. I have recently revisited that issue and I now think that Jesus may very well have existed in human form, but did not conform to the picture of him that the gospels paint.

 

 

My journey for truth and understanding continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Javelin.

 

Deism offers an attractive alternative to traditional Christianity for me. One of the things about Deism that is attractive to me is the lack of dogma, doctrine, and revealed sacred writings. Those things are what motivated me to seek alternatives to Christianity.

 

I find this approach attractive also. I don’t have to believe something because a book, a church, a creed, or a pastor said so. Deists are usually fairly strong rationalists (in the best sense of the word), so they tend to analyze and filter beliefs through the advancement of human progress and knowledge. This doesn’t at all mean that we leave God in the dust, just that we try to understand the spiritual experience behind much of the supernatural language used to convey the experience. It’s like my own recent experience where I felt like I was a drop in the ocean of God’s love. If someone two thousand years from now read my journals and thought that I believed that God was a large body of H2O molecules, they would miss the point of what I was trying to convey.

 

Based on logic, reason, intuition and authenticated historical data I have formed an understanding or mental image of the Divine. It isn’t likely my image of the Divine is accurate but I see its purpose more as a way to connect with the sacred rather than a precise depiction of the Divine.

 

I suspect that is true of all of us, Javelin. I have no doubt that we experience the Divine. But we experience the Divine through our own human understandings, images, and experiences. Therefore, as you have said, our “connections” with the Sacred are not precise, all-encompassing depictions of the Divine, but limited human attempts to describe the More that is meaningful to us. To me, this is like trying to describe or talk about the cosmos but being told that I can only use five words to do so. Anything I would have to say would fall so pitifully short of the experience as to almost be meaningless or nonsense. And yet, the human context is all we have available to us with which to experience and describe the Divine.

 

This is, to me, where Jesus, not as God or as God in a human suit, but as a man who experienced the truth of God in a deeper way than many of us do, takes on meaning for my life. If/when I find his teachings or lifestyle to be somewhat “authoritative” for me, it is not because I think he is God or because he threatens me with hell if I don’t believe. It is because there is something already present in me that says, “Yes, this is right. This is the way it should be. This is best.” It sounds heretical (nothing new for me), but it is *I* who grant him the authority to be my “Lord” in certain aspects. But I don’t do it out of fear or coercion, I do it because I either think he makes sense (in a subversive way) or because I think he is right. My own judgment and subjectivity is embraced, although because Jesus mediates God to me, I still need to be humble about my understandings.

 

I choose to trust that God continues to interact with creation because I see no difference between a non-existent God and one that observes but does not become involved. I choose to trust that God interacts with creation influentially rather than through direct intervention and therefore does not violate the right of free choice.

 

That’s how I see it also. But most deists are not happy with my notions of panentheism (or panendeism), that God interacts from WITHIN his creation (incarnational) rather than from WITHOUT it (supernatural).

 

I have accepted Marcus Borg's thinking that when we die we simply die into God.

 

Yes, Marcus definitely has a way with words.

 

I don't know what that might entail but I hope we are aware that we have become part of the presence of God.

 

This is, imo, an awesome and powerful notion. It goes back to what I have said elsewhere here about what we see in the life of Jesus (and in the lives of many others) is that “heaven comes to earth.” This isn’t a relocation in physical space. It is, rather, a manifestation, a viewing of something that was, in reality, always there, but we had been blind to it. Symbolically, it is the veil rent in two from top to bottom. God’s presence and the experience of it is no longer relegated only to one person or one people group. The Spirit is “poured out” on all flesh, though, obviously, not everyone “walks” according to it (especially me). But we don’t die in order to go to heaven or to go to God. The gospel is that God come to us. And God continues to come in us and through us, just as God did in Jesus. See, I told you I was a heretic!

 

I am relatively new to Deism so my perceptions are still a work in progress and subject to change without notice.

 

As are mine. That is what growth is about. The Bible calls this “repentance” and it is not a one-time deal. It is ongoing.

 

I am undecided about Jesus. I had reached the point where the evidence I’d encountered convinced me that Jesus was more than likely a myth. I have recently revisited that issue and I now think that Jesus may very well have existed in human form, but did not conform to the picture of him that the gospels paint.

 

This is just my opinion (as is everything I write except for where I shamelessly plagiarize), but the question for me is not whether Jesus historically existed (although I think he did), but whether what is generally attributed to him as his best teachings and work are “true”, true in the sense that they reflect what a human would and could do if such a human lived fully in communion with God and with others. Most modern Jesus scholars tell us that the historical Jesus is impossible to get at because of all the layers of mythology that the Greek Church enveloped him in, turning him into God. I suspect this is true. So we have the option of either discarding him as myth or fiction, or of examining, as I’ve mentioned, the experiences that his teachings and lifestyle point to behind all of the supernaturalism that enshrouds him.

 

Many people today reject Jesus out of hand because of either 1) all of the supernatural baggage that goes with him or 2) because those who name his name lead shallow, uncompassionate lives. This is unfortunate. There is something to be missed, by both believers and non-believers, if the teachings of Jesus are not examined. But, and I say this as a self-confessing hypocrite who is better at preaching than at practicing, Jesus’ teachings can only be experienced from the INSIDE. What I mean is this: take the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount. Humbly practice them and their attitudes for, say, two or three weeks. Then consider if those teachings are “true” for you or not. Do they change you? Do they affect your life and the lives of others around you? Do they take you deeper into something (or Someone) that you have experiences that way before? If so, then it doesn’t matter if Jesus was born of a virgin or not. What matters is that you are discovering for yourself that Jesus is a “good tree”, that he and his teachings are a “connection” to the Divine for you. But this applies to any Spirit-person. Mine, probably due to my background and my “language” happens to be Jesus.

 

My journey for truth and understanding continues.

 

And may you be richly blessed and a blessing to others as it does, Javelin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, i think i've lost my "eist" somewhere along the way and not particularly interested in trying to go back and find it. However, I do think examining toward some understanding the perspective of the various "eists" can be a most productive souce of possibilties to consider in shaping your own ideas about God, the Divine, the nature of reality and creation.

I consider any and all "eisms" as well as other "isms" relating to these areas of thought as the result of the efforts of many humans trying to make sense of their reality and their place within it with what tools and means they had to work with in their unique situation and circumstances and experiences.

I recognize that when different people see and experience reality in widely variant situations and contexts, they are not only going to see things "differently" than someone else, but even see "different things" that others did not see, or even had no occasion or opportunity to see. Sort of a matter of all the blind men groping around the elephant and trying to describe it from their limited perspectives. If you consider how all the different blind men describe how they experience the elephant, a more complete overall image of the elephant might come into view.

 

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

>> If you consider how all the different blind men describe how they experience the elephant, a more complete overall image of the elephant might come into view.

 

I think that's true, Jenell, but only up to a certain point. As we know, our metaphors are limited, and in this particular case, the elephant is experienced as something objective, as something "outside" of one's self. Granted, putting all of those objective opinions (the "different things") together can give us a pretty good understanding of what the composite elephant might like. But the composite can't tell us what it is like to be an elephant. :D

 

So the slipperiness of spiritual and/or religious experiences, because they can be both external and internal, is that they don't just describe how we perceive the external, but also how we perceive the internal, which we often insist is just as or even more real than the external.

 

Classical deism, of course, tends to value external revelation more than internal. This doesn't mean that there is no room for internal revelation or witness, it is just that it doesn't support the notion that God plays "favorites" with people, revealing more of God's self and will to certain individuals/groups than God does to others. In this vein, I don't think Jesus had any more of God than what is available to you or I. God is always there and always available. But I do think Jesus was more "sensitive" or more "in tune" with God than many of us are. My notions on this is that, for Jesus, his tuning began inside and was, therefore, lived outside. He sensed or experienced his oneness with God (not that he was God, but that he had an intimate relationship with God) that resulted in his life being a vessel for the Spirit to live and work through. That is my own goal, although I often fail. I experience the "elephant" both externally and internally, but I am not the elephant. When Christians or people start to think that they are the elephant, I think they have crossed over to idolatry. Such doesn't frighten me for fear of going to hell. It is just that I know that I didn't create everything that exists. I am, in the best sense, divine (proceeding from God), but not Deity (not myself God). I think that Genesis says it best. We are NOT made to be little gods running around on earth, we are made to be images or ikons of the true God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service