Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29897
    16 Sep '18 16:46
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    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
    Admirers of Jesus who don't think he was sent by a creator god cannot realistically or accurately call themselves Christians.
  2. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    12680
    16 Sep '18 16:53
    Originally posted by @fmf
    Admirers of Jesus who don't think he was sent by a creator god cannot realistically or accurately call themselves Christians.
    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.
  3. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29897
    16 Sep '18 16:55
    Originally posted by @chaney3
    The term "Christian deist" exists and is a real thing.
    "Bombay duck" is a term and "a real thing" but it's a fish. The term "Bombay duck" does not make the fish a duck. "Bombay duck" is a misnomer.
  4. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29897
    16 Sep '18 16:591 edit
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    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.
    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.
  5. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29897
    16 Sep '18 17:05
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

    Mark 12:30–31
    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".
  6. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    12680
    16 Sep '18 17:07
    Originally posted by @fmf
    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.
    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.
  7. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    12680
    16 Sep '18 17:11
    Originally posted by @fmf
    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".
    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.

    😲
  8. Joined
    26 Dec '14
    Moves
    31256
    16 Sep '18 17:19
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    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.

    😲
    Great point.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    149469
    16 Sep '18 17:243 edits
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    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.
    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 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.
  10. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29897
    16 Sep '18 17:272 edits
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    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.

    😲
    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 how they can be legitimately called a Christian.
  11. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    12680
    16 Sep '18 17:29
    Originally posted by @kellyjay
    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.
    Do you understand sir that I feel the same way when you try to combine your theistic outlook and evolution? (A 'watering down' effect).
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    149469
    16 Sep '18 17:311 edit
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    Do you understand sir that I feel the same way when you try to combine your theistic outlook and evolution? (A 'watering down' effect).
    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.
  13. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    12680
    16 Sep '18 17:36
    Originally posted by @fmf
    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.
    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,
  14. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    12680
    16 Sep '18 17:40
    Originally posted by @kellyjay
    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.
    I 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.
  15. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29897
    16 Sep '18 17:48
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    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,
    I 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.
Back to Top