Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAdmirers of Jesus who don't think he was sent by a creator god cannot realistically or accurately call themselves Christians.
Are you sure you didn't mean 'Christian dentist?' 😀
I think you are partially correct. A Trinitarian Christian couldn't be a deist (due to the intervention of God issue). Technically, however, if a person regarded the Bible as mostly metaphorical, and followed the teachings of Jesus, then they could be classified as a non-Trinitarian Christian ...[text shortened]... your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:30–31
Originally posted by @fmfTrue sir. However, I specifically said 'follower' of Jesus, not 'admirer.'
Admirers of Jesus who don't think he was sent by a creator god cannot realistically or accurately call themselves Christians.
A person could still identify as a Christian if they followed the teachings of Jesus while viewing the Bible itself as largely metaphorical. And with this being the case, they could likewise identify as a Christian Deist.
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI think it's sloppy. "Deist" means something specific. "Christian" means something else. Now if you want to use a term "Follower of Jesus", I can maybe go along with it. But "Christian deist" is a sloppy misnomer and I don't see any benefit from smudging the meaning of these words.
True sir. However, I specifically said 'follower' of Jesus, not 'admirer.'
A person could still identify as a Christian if they followed the teachings of Jesus while viewing the Bible itself as largely metaphorical. And with this being the case, they could likewise identify as a Christian Deist.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI think this is a teaching I follow probably to a similar extent to many Christians. I think the Sermon on the Mount is inspiring and morally sound and good to follow or emulate. But this does not make me a "Christian".
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Mark 12:30–31
Originally posted by @fmfI think if we can have 'Agnostic atheist' we can certainly have 'Christian deist.'
I think it's sloppy. "Deist" means something specific. "Christian" means something else. Now if you want to use a term "Follower of Jesus", I can maybe go along with it. But "Christian deist" is a sloppy misnomer and I don't see any benefit from smudging the meaning of these words.
A possible advantage of being a Christian deist would be the freedom to dismiss the creation account of Genesis and embrace scientific explanations.
Originally posted by @fmfThinking about it sir, if you follow the teachings of Jesus and acknowledge the existence of an unknowable God, you may indeed just make it on to the Christian spectrum and qualify yourself as a Christian Deist.
I think this is a teaching I follow probably to a similar extent to many Christians. I think the Sermon on the Mount is inspiring and morally sound and good to follow or emulate. But this does not make me a "Christian".
😲
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeGreat point.
Thinking about it sir, if you follow the teachings of Jesus and acknowledge the existence of an unknowable God, you may indeed just make it on to the Christian spectrum and qualify yourself as a Christian Deist.
😲
3 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhich is what my complaint against the term is, stripping divinity from Christ, it isn't
I think if we can have 'Agnostic atheist' we can certainly have 'Christian deist.'
A possible advantage of being a Christian deist would be the freedom to dismiss the creation account of Genesis and embrace scientific explanations.
Christianity any more. So, stick to the term deist as is, because it apply describes the
term as is. Attempting to combine the two only waters down Christianity into something it
isn't. Attempting to combine the two promotes the term Deist suggest they are
undisguisable from each other when the differences are immense.
2 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI do not have a belief in a god or gods that would be the prerequisite for being a deist. If someone doesn't believe Jesus was sent by the God revealed in the Bible, then I can't see how they can be legitimately called a Christian.
Thinking about it sir, if you follow the teachings of Jesus and acknowledge the existence of an unknowable God, you may indeed just make it on to the Christian spectrum and qualify yourself as a Christian Deist.
😲
Originally posted by @kellyjayDo you understand sir that I feel the same way when you try to combine your theistic outlook and evolution? (A 'watering down' effect).
Which is what my complaint against the term is, stripping divinity from Christ, it isn't
Christianity any more. So, stick to the term deist as is, because it applies describes the
term as is. Attempting to combine the two only waters down Christianity into something it
isn't. Attempting to combine the two promotes the term Deist suggest they are
undisguisable from each other when the difference are immense.
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeNo, evolution is a process.
Do you understand sir that I feel the same way when you try to combine your theistic outlook and evolution? (A 'watering down' effect).
I believe in processes.
If you believe I water down that term, describe how I do it please.
You may feel the need to start a new thread for this.
Originally posted by @fmfI know sir. (Hence the deployment of the unsatisfactory emoticon).
I do not have a belief in a god or gods that would be the prerequisite for being a deist. If someone doesn't believe Jesus was sent by the God revealed in the Bible, then I can't see hiw they can be Christian.
ToO is (possibly) the closest thing we have here to a Christian Deist. I'm pretty sure he is not alone. It's really a question of how people identify themselves, not how we would identify them,
Originally posted by @kellyjayI believe you take on board the 'micro' processes of evolution as they fit in with your religious outlook, while dismissing the 'macro' (and far more significant) processes of evolution because they don't.
No, evolution is a process.
I believe in processes.
If you believe I water down that term, describe how I do it please.
You may feel the need to start a new thread for this.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI don't see any benefit from smudging and fudging words. Next there'll be someone telling me Muslims are Christians because they believe Jesus was sent by God.
I know sir. (Hence the deployment of the unsatisfactory emoticon).
ToO is (possibly) the closest thing we have here to a Christian Deist. I'm pretty sure he is not alone. It's really a question of how people identify themselves, not how we would identify them,