Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleHow is it an "easy route" exactly? Do you think your belief that there is "some message for us" in the natural world is the result of you taking a 'difficult' route?
Deism seems to try to take this easy route of saying 'oh, there isn't going to be anything in the natural world or any event that I point to as being proof of it, or as having some message for us.'
Originally posted by @fmfRight, they do not have any such burden.
"Philosophically expedient"? Surely people who do have religious beliefs [about what they claim are detailed revelations by a creator god] can just go ahead and defend their religions; why should people who are not religious in this way have "the burden of defending [a] religion"?
I think that is partly the point: the active defense of Christianity and theosis and action required by Christianity can be viewed as quite burdensome. We basically have to take upon ourselves a very large process and uphold a lot of high standards.
Especially more intelligent people can be turned off simultaneously by the requirements of the Flesh and the way that Christianity has no proof in the material...
And so I feel like deism is a convenient way to wiggle out from under the great weight of Christendom while getting all of the other benefits that come with it.
That is a bit judgmental of me and that surely cannot describe everyone, but I think anyone honest would give me some benefit of the doubt here and say that I am surely describing some of the phenomena.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhat "benefits" are you talking about?
And so I feel like deism is a convenient way to wiggle out from under the great weight of Christendom while getting all of the other benefits that come with it.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIt sounds like you think the "burden" that you feel is imposed upon you by your religious faith creates some obligation for non-Christians. I don't see why.
... the active defense of Christianity and theosis and action required by Christianity can be viewed as quite burdensome. We basically have to take upon ourselves a very large process and uphold a lot of high standards.
I am not a Christian; do you think the "high standards" you uphold - as a Christian - are higher than whatever my standards are?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfIs there any evidence to support the assumption that God does not interfere directly with the affairs of humans?
I have been described as a deist several times over the years on this forum. I don't think it's true because I lack the prerequisite belief in a deity. I am open to the idea, but I think to be a deist I would have to be more 'proactive' about my belief in a creator being. And maybe I was more so in the past.
However, I do find myself to be - at least on a gu ...[text shortened]... es not interfere directly with the affairs of humans to be "intellectually dishonest".
Is it?
Many Christians have evidence of answered prayers. This counts as evidence at least to them. What evidence does a Deist have to support their assumption?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou should address this question to deists or maybe explore whatever web presence that deists or deist groups have. Perhaps their evidence is just as subjective and/or emotional and preaching-to-the-choir-ish as Christians [or Muslims for that matter] citing "evidence of answered prayers". Let us know what you find; it would fit nicely on this thread, seeing as there are no deists to 'fight' their corner.
Many Christians have evidence of answered prayers. This counts as evidence at least to them. What evidence does a Deist have to support their assumption?
It is said, he who knew will be beaten with many stripes, and he who did not know will be beaten with few stripes (the parable in Luke 12).
If you have a relationship with God and a positive church life, you know and you must diligently execute.
It is said that all Saints believed they were going to hell. This is an exaggeration to some degree... but it is also not. We have stories of holy persons who were committed but due to their ego they failed to enter the Kingdom of God, and we have stories of grave sinners but, due to a sincere and childlike faith and the true contrition of the heart and honest execution of just a single inward virtue, enter the Kingdom of God.
The point is to never actually think that you are saved because you can never rest on your laurels. And it is with oru knowledge that a duty comes -- and only duty. If we let arrogance or conceit grew in its place, we are failing ourselves. If I turn people away from God even though I follow him, because of a sense of pride, or if I ignore suffering and do not reach out... I am committing quite grave sins that are very subtle. But the broken heroin addicted prostitue who never had a decent shake in life, who in her moment of death cries out to an unknown God for salvation can have it all, while my outwardly Holy path has only been a pathway of gold to the gates of hell.
Paul refers to himself as the greatest sinner of all in 1 Corinthians 15:15. The.Apostle.Paul. And I am no Apostle.
I think that... this is the sort of attitude I have learned to have from some extremely wisened and tremendous Christian people, my Bishop, and my catechist, and the Priests that I have had.. They say that the worst sin of all is pride, and that zero spiritual growth is capable if you are prideful.
And what would be the pinnacle of pride? Believing you have done something great or special that makes you automatically pass judgment.
I cannot speak for everyone at all but I think that many people get a whiff of this and they understand.
Or, they think that they can judge better than God, and that the systems outlined within the Bible are too strict, or somehow arbitrary. I don't know, frankly, and I will not judge them, but I am just trying to understand...
I'm sorry, I did not tie this all together perfectly btu I do not have much time and just wanted to communicate this. I will try to expand on it later because I think you are a good poster, FMF. Forgive my inadequacies.
Originally posted by @fmfPerhaps you should have a little more confidence in yourself and perhaps then you won't always assume that Christians are trying to attack you, or "claim" something about you specifically, when they are not.
It sounds like you think the "burden" that you feel is imposed upon you by your religious faith creates some obligation for non-Christians. I don't see why.
I am not a Christian; do you think the "high standards" you uphold - as a Christian - are higher than whatever my standards are?
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI find this an interesting point of view, and I find much to agree with here.
It is said, he who knew will be beaten with many stripes, and he who did not know will be beaten with few stripes (the parable in Luke 12).
If you have a relationship with God and a positive church life, you know and you must diligently execute.
It is said that all Saints believed they were going to hell. This is an exaggeration ...[text shortened]... l try to expand on it later because I think you are a good poster, FMF. Forgive my inadequacies.
What denomination did you say you were again?
Originally posted by @suzianneI have never complained of being "attacked" by Christians, per se. When did you think I did?
Perhaps you should have a little more confidence in yourself and perhaps then you won't always assume that Christians are trying to attack you, or "claim" something about you specifically, when they are not.
Originally posted by @fmfThe way you choose to deal with Christians in this forum, attacking them for what they say, seems to suggest that you seem to think they are somehow speaking specifically about you.
I have never complained of being "attacked" by Christians, per se. When did you think I did?
Rarely, if ever, is this the case. At least until you start screwing with them.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI understand the point you make which is that [you believe] Christians have to do it tough and must work hard and modestly - and persistently - to live up to certain principles, but I still don't understand what burden or obligation this personal experience of yours (and Christians like you) actually creates for, and imposes on, non-Christians.
I'm sorry, I did not tie this all together perfectly but I do not have much time and just wanted to communicate this. I will try to expand on it later because I think you are a good poster, FMF. Forgive my inadequacies.
Originally posted by @suzianneIt's a debate and discussion forum and people disagree, Suzianne. I get that you don't care for my posts and don't agree with what I say. You've said so many times. Do you have anything to contribute about the thread topic?
The way you choose to deal with Christians in this forum, attacking them for what they say, seems to suggest that you seem to think they are somehow speaking specifically about you.
I'm an Orthodox believer -- my parish falls under the ecumenical patriarchate. Our Bishop is Greek and much of our congregation is Russian, though, so we honor both Greek & Russian elements within Orthodoxy, and there are a significant amount of other Americans as well.
... My point about burdens has to do with the idea that most deists who are familiar with Christianity are going to innately understand the burden that Christianity brings to us if they have any understanding at all of the Bible, and it is natural to want to not feel these great burdens, or to even get rid of elements of Christianity that don't appeal to the materialism & empiricism rooted rationalism of the modern world.