Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Which religion / belief do you belong to?

Page 2 of 5 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

anthropic_principle
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Jul 2014
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 300

11 Nov 2014, 12:54 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Nominally Christian deist and student of stoic philosophy.


'Christian deist'? first time I've ever heard that.. isn't that an oxymoron?
if you believe in the divinity of jesus then you aren't a deist.
if you don't you aren't a christian.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Nov 2014, 1:45 am

Nominally Lutheran I guess, that's what my parents were growing up but I've been to church like 3 times in my life outside weddings and funerals. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is pretty ultraconservative compared to other branches of Lutheranism from what I gather, I'm not really interested in all that. My mom told me they have some pretty extreme views on the Pope, Jews, black people, etc. They basically consider themselves the one true Christian church. I'd probably describe myself as an agnostic, it's impossible to know so I don't even try. I vaguely believe in something, something bigger than myself that is beyond comprehension and that there is more to our existence than what we what we experience here on earth during life. I always figured if there was a god that wanted me to worship or do something for him/her/whatever that they'd rationally speak to me or give me a sign or something. I dunno what to believe really, what you want and what you rationally believe are two different things. I just try to be a good person and keep those that have passed in my life in my thoughts, they continue on living that way.



Last edited by Jacoby on 11 Nov 2014, 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

DevilKisses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,067
Location: Canada

11 Nov 2014, 1:52 am

GoonSquad wrote:
DevilKisses wrote:
I'm spiritual, but not religious. Religious people interpret this as a me being a lost soul looking for a religion. Atheists interpret this as being an atheist in denial.


Hmm... I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I am curious. What does that actually mean to you?

...because when I hear that phrase, it makes me think, "superstitious but without a moral/ethical code."

The practical purpose of religion, to my mind, is the transmission of morals and ethics (not that one cannot be moral and ethical without being religious, because they can, obviously).

I kind of believe in a god or higher power, but I don't know much about about it. That kind of rules out atheism. I do have morals, but I don't really depend on some god to enforce them. My conscience usually does that instead. I guess I have a lot in common with atheists when it comes to morals. I believe in a lot of other stuff, but I won't mention them because I don't want to debate them.


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 82 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 124 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Nov 2014, 2:45 am

Jacoby wrote:
Nominally Lutheran I guess, that's what my parents were growing up but I've been to church like 3 times in my life outside weddings and funerals. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is pretty ultraconservative compared to other branches of Lutheranism from what I gather, I'm not really interested in all that. My mom told me they have some pretty extreme views on the Pope, Jews, black people, etc. They basically consider themselves the one true Christian church. I'd probably describe myself as an agnostic, it's impossible to know so I don't even try. I vaguely believe in something, something bigger than myself that is beyond comprehension and that there is more to our existence than what we what we experience here on earth during life. I always figured if there was a god that wanted me to worship or do something for him/her/whatever that they'd rationally speak to me or give me a sign or something. I dunno what to believe really, what you want and what you rationally believe are two different things. I just try to be a good person and keep those that have passed in my life in my thoughts, they continue on living that way.


My own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which fancies itself as theologically conservative, looks liberal compared to the Wisconsin Synod.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

11 Nov 2014, 6:07 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Nominally Lutheran I guess, that's what my parents were growing up but I've been to church like 3 times in my life outside weddings and funerals. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is pretty ultraconservative compared to other branches of Lutheranism from what I gather, I'm not really interested in all that. My mom told me they have some pretty extreme views on the Pope, Jews, black people, etc. They basically consider themselves the one true Christian church. I'd probably describe myself as an agnostic, it's impossible to know so I don't even try. I vaguely believe in something, something bigger than myself that is beyond comprehension and that there is more to our existence than what we what we experience here on earth during life. I always figured if there was a god that wanted me to worship or do something for him/her/whatever that they'd rationally speak to me or give me a sign or something. I dunno what to believe really, what you want and what you rationally believe are two different things. I just try to be a good person and keep those that have passed in my life in my thoughts, they continue on living that way.


My own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which fancies itself as theologically conservative, looks liberal compared to the Wisconsin Synod.


In the big wide world of Christian theology you guys are pretty conservative when compared to groups that don't share nearly as much in common with the older order. Of course there is much debate too on who is actually "the most conservative", as clearly the most conservative group would be the one that most resembles the 1st century Christians in their theology. Many argue that these older order groups were Hellenized so they aren't technically of the oldest order, that their idea of mystical ordination from one church leader to the next all the way up to the modern Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic churches, may not actually pan out as we learn more of classical period history.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

11 Nov 2014, 10:24 am

anthropic_principle wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Nominally Christian deist and student of stoic philosophy.


'Christian deist'? first time I've ever heard that.. isn't that an oxymoron?
if you believe in the divinity of jesus then you aren't a deist.
if you don't you aren't a christian.


Well, I think you need to pay closer attention... :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism
Quote:
Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings?but not divinity?of Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[1] The earliest-found usage of the term Christian deism in print in English is in 1738 in a book by Thomas Morgan,[2] appearing about ten times by 1800.[3]
...
It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States "have tended to place the founders' religion into one of three categories?non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity."[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised "nature's God" in the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) and edited the "Jefferson Bible"?a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.


Personally, my position is that Christ's divinity has no bearing on the practical value of his moral/ethical teachings. Also, while I believe in a creator, it is abundantly clear that the world works via scientifically knowable forces such as the laws of physics and evolution and without divine micromanagement--(my flavor of Deism).

This is pretty much the official position of the Catholic church as well.

So, as you can see, Christianity and Deism aren't as mutually exclusive as you might think.

Also, while I think the world of men, mostly, operates on its own via a long string of cause & effect, I don't rule out very occasional divine intervention. So, I guess you could call me a 'soft' deist.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,588

11 Nov 2014, 12:11 pm

^^
i agree with MOST of this.. :)

i do not think that all of modern Christianity reflects all of the oral tradition.. originally better reflecting what might have been the teachings of Jesus then... per the Gospel of Thomas.. translated to English in 1959....

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

IN FACT.. there is substantial evidence that Roman Emperor Constantine with help of Early Catholic Cohorts.. changed the oral tradition of Jesus' aka Yeshua's words around to suit THEir desires at that time..

Centuries after Jesus lived.. making Jesus into a warrior GOD of the Universe.. and Roman Empire too.. of course to help consolidate with other tribes with similar beliefs to expand the Roman Empire further and further beyond its current borders...

While Constantine ordered and erected a psychopathic leaning giant monolith statue of Constantine himself.. to reflect Constantine as a frigging Sun GOD.. as those with psychopathic leaning traits.. tend to do.. albeit in smaller ways than that.. usually...;)

The main thing is 'he'.. YES Jesus.. reflected himself as a humble teacher and giver.. not a GOD...of the entire frigging Universe....

When i read parts of the modern versions of the New Testament.. it's like listening to any used car salesman.. or perhaps Roman Emperor Constantine.. of old.. when i get to John 3:16 per the emotional hyperbole of the folks yelling at me on the street corners.. per reciting that verse as literal truth or going directly to hell with no pass to get out...

It's truly to me..

like visiting the used car sales lot.. without them knowing i could buy the lot in cash if i cared to...

In other words i don't need no stinking credit from a verse in a book by a salesman by the red lights of life...

As metaphor.. of course....

i go on green all now long..:) in GOD's freedom.. that no human rules... by book.. or word....

And i also agree that "No man is free who is not master of himself".. per Epictetus

Not easy to do.. but obviously possible by scientific example of Yogi's in the Tibetan mountains who can steam heat off of robes in icy waters.. as well as control their brains waves from alpha to theta wave trance....

i have these abilities as i do Tai Chi in my underwear in the snow and wear shorts on 18 degree weather days.. and yes.. i have it documented in photos too.. but not appropriate to share here....

Additionally i control my brain waves.. through sacred TAI CHI like dance from alpha to theta trance....

With no need for bio-feedback machines to verify this.. as anyone in the know who knows it sees it when i am there....

And yes.. obviously at times...

i do this in form of words too...

when i 'set' my mind to IT.. but i can turn off the switch at WILL.. back to Robotic Mind.. whenever i care to..

of words with no soul.....

Yes.. THIS IS RELATIVE FREE WILL..... STUFF that used car sales folks.. LIKELY WILL never enter into as potential NEW DIMENSION IN LIFE.. TO be eyes and ears.. of GOD as well.. vs. worshipping money.. as a cold dead idol.. of life.. that doesn't even exist....AS LIFE with SOUL....


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 11 Nov 2014, 1:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,091
Location: temperate zone

11 Nov 2014, 12:44 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
anthropic_principle wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Nominally Christian deist and student of stoic philosophy.


'Christian deist'? first time I've ever heard that.. isn't that an oxymoron?
if you believe in the divinity of jesus then you aren't a deist.
if you don't you aren't a christian.


Well, I think you need to pay closer attention... :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism
Quote:
Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings?but not divinity?of Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[1] The earliest-found usage of the term Christian deism in print in English is in 1738 in a book by Thomas Morgan,[2] appearing about ten times by 1800.[3]
...
It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States "have tended to place the founders' religion into one of three categories?non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity."[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised "nature's God" in the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) and edited the "Jefferson Bible"?a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.


Personally, my position is that Christ's divinity has no bearing on the practical value of his moral/ethical teachings. Also, while I believe in a creator, it is abundantly clear that the world works via scientifically knowable forces such as the laws of physics and evolution and without divine micromanagement--(my flavor of Deism).

This is pretty much the official position of the Catholic church as well.

So, as you can see, Christianity and Deism aren't as mutually exclusive as you might think.

Also, while I think the world of men, mostly, operates on its own via a long string of cause & effect, I don't rule out very occasional divine intervention. So, I guess you could call me a 'soft' deist.


I wouldve thought the same thing- that they were mutually exclusive.

Okay - there are Diests, then there are "Christian Diests" who are who have a Deism that is flavored by Christ as a philosopher ( using the word "christian" in a way equivalent to the terms "Platonic" or "Confucianist").

But they would hardly be "Christian" in the usually sense.
If you're a deist than you deny that Christ was divine, therefore deny the Trinity, therefore cannot be an orthodox christian. You would be nontrinitarian heretic in the Arian traditon (like a Muslim, or an old style Unitarian).

And there is no way in heck that denying the Trinity is "the official stance of the Catholic Church". That would mean that the Vatican was declaring itsself to be heretical by its own definition. They would have to burn themselves at the stake!



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,588

11 Nov 2014, 1:03 pm

^^
He's not saying that the Catholic Church denies the trinity. He's saying that the Catholic Church focuses more on the value of the morals and ethics of the teachings rather than the man Jesus as idol of divinity. In other words, 'Pretty much', an adjectively speaking phrase of words which means almost, but not the whole thing.

And as I have not missed a Sunday in Catholic Church, for the last year plus, going through the whole yearly liturgical seasons, I can vouch for this truth, NOW, as it's all about the teachings, verses my visits at Southern Baptist churches where it's all about Jesus as GOD and if you don't believe it you ARE GOING TO HELL.

THOSE WORDS are never said in my Catholic church, as there it is ALL ABOUT HOPE AND LOVE, AND If any deacon varies from that, like suggesting that what homosexuals do is evil, or single mothers are not fit to raise children, from the old ways of thinking, he slaps them down, into submission, of Love. :)

And I do have documented evidence of that, upon request. As I was the one that brought it to his attention in E-mail form, when they took advantage of his absence per that Sunday of deviance from hope and love, that my Monsignor Priest never veers from a pulpit of LOVE And HOPE.

Yes, Hope and LOVE ARE SOME OF THE Real tangible benefits of human LIFE, living it in a positive way, PER NATURE, as evolved without cultural illusion, as science now shows, as well, OVERALL, and the Catholic Church NOW PROMOTES THAT, from the Pulpit.

I cannot say the same for the other so-called Christian churches in my area that I have visited, and that is why they are only visits. There are seeds and weeds, and there are churches that are seeds and weeds, depending on which one is visited.

I do not mind visiting weeds, but they can get annoying. :)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,781
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Nov 2014, 2:01 pm

Lukecash12 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Nominally Lutheran I guess, that's what my parents were growing up but I've been to church like 3 times in my life outside weddings and funerals. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is pretty ultraconservative compared to other branches of Lutheranism from what I gather, I'm not really interested in all that. My mom told me they have some pretty extreme views on the Pope, Jews, black people, etc. They basically consider themselves the one true Christian church. I'd probably describe myself as an agnostic, it's impossible to know so I don't even try. I vaguely believe in something, something bigger than myself that is beyond comprehension and that there is more to our existence than what we what we experience here on earth during life. I always figured if there was a god that wanted me to worship or do something for him/her/whatever that they'd rationally speak to me or give me a sign or something. I dunno what to believe really, what you want and what you rationally believe are two different things. I just try to be a good person and keep those that have passed in my life in my thoughts, they continue on living that way.


My own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which fancies itself as theologically conservative, looks liberal compared to the Wisconsin Synod.


In the big wide world of Christian theology you guys are pretty conservative when compared to groups that don't share nearly as much in common with the older order. Of course there is much debate too on who is actually "the most conservative", as clearly the most conservative group would be the one that most resembles the 1st century Christians in their theology. Many argue that these older order groups were Hellenized so they aren't technically of the oldest order, that their idea of mystical ordination from one church leader to the next all the way up to the modern Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic churches, may not actually pan out as we learn more of classical period history.


Yes, but we're in an odd position - theologically conservative, yet clinging to an identity as a mainline Protestant church rather than fundamentalist/evangelical. More often than not, we consider ours to be a "unique" identity.
I readily admit I don't agree with everything my church body teaches, particularly about LGBT rights, and an evolutionary process in nature. But neither am I the only one in the LCMS who feels this way by a long shot.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

11 Nov 2014, 5:44 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

I wouldve thought the same thing- that they were mutually exclusive.

Okay - there are Diests, then there are "Christian Diests" who are who have a Deism that is flavored by Christ as a philosopher ( using the word "christian" in a way equivalent to the terms "Platonic" or "Confucianist").

But they would hardly be "Christian" in the usually sense.
If you're a deist than you deny that Christ was divine, therefore deny the Trinity, therefore cannot be an orthodox christian. You would be nontrinitarian heretic in the Arian traditon (like a Muslim, or an old style Unitarian).

And there is no way in heck that denying the Trinity is "the official stance of the Catholic Church". That would mean that the Vatican was declaring itsself to be heretical by its own definition. They would have to burn themselves at the stake!


When referencing the Catholic Church I was specifically talking about its attitude toward science not the nature of Jesus.

I suppose I should have separated those two comments for clarity.

As to what aghogday said, it sounds pretty good to me.

I'm not 'up' enough on contemporary Catholic teachings to comment on it.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,091
Location: temperate zone

11 Nov 2014, 6:22 pm

^
you're right about that.

They didnt much like Galileo back in the day, but the last three or four Popes have actually been okay with Darwin. And the Eastern Orthodox Churches were never very upset about him either. Its Protestant Americans who seemed to be the only ones carrying on the fight to deny Evolution. Maybe with help from Australians (both Catholic and Protestant).



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

11 Nov 2014, 7:22 pm

Dionysian



Unsure123
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 13 Mar 2014
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 27

11 Nov 2014, 10:43 pm

Proud evangelical here!



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

11 Nov 2014, 11:31 pm

aghogday wrote:
^^
i agree with MOST of this.. :)

i do not think that all of modern Christianity reflects all of the oral tradition.. originally better reflecting what might have been the teachings of Jesus then... per the Gospel of Thomas.. translated to English in 1959....

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

IN FACT.. there is substantial evidence that Roman Emperor Constantine with help of Early Catholic Cohorts.. changed the oral tradition of Jesus' aka Yeshua's words around to suit THEir desires at that time..

Centuries after Jesus lived.. making Jesus into a warrior GOD of the Universe.. and Roman Empire too.. of course to help consolidate with other tribes with similar beliefs to expand the Roman Empire further and further beyond its current borders...

While Constantine ordered and erected a psychopathic leaning giant monolith statue of Constantine himself.. to reflect Constantine as a frigging Sun GOD.. as those with psychopathic leaning traits.. tend to do.. albeit in smaller ways than that.. usually...;)

The main thing is 'he'.. YES Jesus.. reflected himself as a humble teacher and giver.. not a GOD...of the entire frigging Universe....

When i read parts of the modern versions of the New Testament.. it's like listening to any used car salesman.. or perhaps Roman Emperor Constantine.. of old.. when i get to John 3:16 per the emotional hyperbole of the folks yelling at me on the street corners.. per reciting that verse as literal truth or going directly to hell with no pass to get out...

It's truly to me..

like visiting the used car sales lot.. without them knowing i could buy the lot in cash if i cared to...

In other words i don't need no stinking credit from a verse in a book by a salesman by the red lights of life...

As metaphor.. of course....

i go on green all now long..:) in GOD's freedom.. that no human rules... by book.. or word....

And i also agree that "No man is free who is not master of himself".. per Epictetus

Not easy to do.. but obviously possible by scientific example of Yogi's in the Tibetan mountains who can steam heat off of robes in icy waters.. as well as control their brains waves from alpha to theta wave trance....

i have these abilities as i do Tai Chi in my underwear in the snow and wear shorts on 18 degree weather days.. and yes.. i have it documented in photos too.. but not appropriate to share here....

Additionally i control my brain waves.. through sacred TAI CHI like dance from alpha to theta trance....

With no need for bio-feedback machines to verify this.. as anyone in the know who knows it sees it when i am there....

And yes.. obviously at times...

i do this in form of words too...

when i 'set' my mind to IT.. but i can turn off the switch at WILL.. back to Robotic Mind.. whenever i care to..

of words with no soul.....

Yes.. THIS IS RELATIVE FREE WILL..... STUFF that used car sales folks.. LIKELY WILL never enter into as potential NEW DIMENSION IN LIFE.. TO be eyes and ears.. of GOD as well.. vs. worshipping money.. as a cold dead idol.. of life.. that doesn't even exist....AS LIFE with SOUL....


What's interesting about Roman Catholicism is that they also took the books that were already canon and came up with Hellenic concepts on books we understand today to be distinctly Hebrew. They substituted Hebrew oral forms for Latin and Greek forms like the credo/creed, encyclical, etc. and then they elevated their Hellenic traditions to the same status as the original materials.

No offense, but I'd honestly like to see why you think the gospel of Thomas is authentic material though. I don't mean to put you on the spot or put you down, but lot's of times a gnostic person will refer me to these gospels and act as if the mere fact that they exist throws what we know to be 1st century material into doubt. How do we decide which is which in a way that isn't arbitrary? This I haven't been given much of an explanation for yet, although I have at least heard a gnostic say they thought the gospel of Thomas in particular wasn't a 3rd century but a 1st century document.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

11 Nov 2014, 11:36 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
anthropic_principle wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Nominally Christian deist and student of stoic philosophy.


'Christian deist'? first time I've ever heard that.. isn't that an oxymoron?
if you believe in the divinity of jesus then you aren't a deist.
if you don't you aren't a christian.


Well, I think you need to pay closer attention... :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism
Quote:
Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from Christianity. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings?but not divinity?of Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[1] The earliest-found usage of the term Christian deism in print in English is in 1738 in a book by Thomas Morgan,[2] appearing about ten times by 1800.[3]
...
It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States "have tended to place the founders' religion into one of three categories?non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity."[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised "nature's God" in the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) and edited the "Jefferson Bible"?a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.


Personally, my position is that Christ's divinity has no bearing on the practical value of his moral/ethical teachings. Also, while I believe in a creator, it is abundantly clear that the world works via scientifically knowable forces such as the laws of physics and evolution and without divine micromanagement--(my flavor of Deism).

This is pretty much the official position of the Catholic church as well.

So, as you can see, Christianity and Deism aren't as mutually exclusive as you might think.

Also, while I think the world of men, mostly, operates on its own via a long string of cause & effect, I don't rule out very occasional divine intervention. So, I guess you could call me a 'soft' deist.


I wouldve thought the same thing- that they were mutually exclusive.

Okay - there are Diests, then there are "Christian Diests" who are who have a Deism that is flavored by Christ as a philosopher ( using the word "christian" in a way equivalent to the terms "Platonic" or "Confucianist").

But they would hardly be "Christian" in the usually sense.
If you're a deist than you deny that Christ was divine, therefore deny the Trinity, therefore cannot be an orthodox christian. You would be nontrinitarian heretic in the Arian traditon (like a Muslim, or an old style Unitarian).

And there is no way in heck that denying the Trinity is "the official stance of the Catholic Church". That would mean that the Vatican was declaring itsself to be heretical by its own definition. They would have to burn themselves at the stake!


The Vatican is no longer all that repressive of people, aside from stuff like birth control of course; it makes my eyes roll that they've made so much progress and they're tripped up on a few simple issues like that. For starters they no longer pronounce anathema/damnation on groups outside of the Catholic church, although they do call it heretical. That would be a technically accurate statement though, as heresy literally means difference. Now they also accept empirical science for what it is and have adjusted accordingly.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib