English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm a deist, however i found what i believed than later discovered the term. I feel it really is only one of a few beliefs that you find, not a belief that finds yuo. I based it on reason, logic and observation of the world, not on the teachings of another. What do you think?? What makes you choose revealed religion? "Revealed religion is based on the belief of fantastic claims made by questionable people"-unknown

2007-05-03 01:23:39 · 8 answers · asked by mike j 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

8 answers

Deism is better than Theism anyway....keep the faith

2007-05-03 01:29:45 · answer #1 · answered by PLUTO 6 · 0 1

First of all, thanks. I've just noticed I've been wrongly using the term deist. I've always thought that deist / theist were the same thing and have been using the terms interchangeably.

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
theism — roughly, the belief that gods or deities exist
deism — the belief that a god or gods exists, but does not interact with events at the scale of human beings

I'm an animist, so I'm afraid I don't believe in a deity at all. From this viewpoint, I would say that deists, like atheists, run the risk of cutting themselves off from the sense of wonder given by the natural world. The deist viewpoint, like that of the atheist, is that of the rational world. As the supernatural is discounted, there is no potential comeback, so selfishness is a danger - a "This life is all there is so I'm going to damned well enjoy it" attitude. These dangers are generally mitigated in those who have children.

Of course, this is a generalisation and I know many atheists who do not follow this path. In fact, a couple of those I know who call themselves Christian may in fact be deists who follow the teachings of Christ.

2007-05-03 08:44:35 · answer #2 · answered by Valarian 4 · 0 0

First of all, I don't accept your definition of revealed religion:

"Revealed religion is based on the belief of fantastic claims made by questionable people"

Why? Because I adhere to the Catholic religion and it is based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ - He is a not questionable person. I don't doubt the validity of anything He said. He was God and He proved it by not only fulfilling hundreds of prophesies uttered hundreds of years before He came to earth, but He performed miracles like raising men from the dead. Only God can give back life.

As to what my opinion of deism is, I would say it is good that a man acknowledges what his common sense tells him - that there is a God and that He created a world of order and beauty.

However, there is more to it than that. What God would create a world such as this and then leave it to its own devices? Surely we have a purpose here on earth. Nothing is random.

So here is my line of reason:

If God created us and gave us a world of such beauty and wonder surely He must care for us. And if He cares for us, then He must care about the problems of evil and sin. And every problem needs a solution, so a good God provided such a solution with the Incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ.

That's simplistic but it sums up the basics of revealed truth. God bless you and bring you to the fullness of His Truth.

2007-05-03 08:30:42 · answer #3 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0 0

Any religion that turns our eyes to a creative, loving way is proper and good. There is a natural order exhibited in all things and the religion, called Christianity (as taught by Christ)now exhibits the most peaceful and loving path,
which puts it at the highest order of our spirit's journey. People are born into races and religions for meaningful reasons. However, not untill we do away with these class-distinction's will we reach that new city of peace.

2007-05-03 20:55:16 · answer #4 · answered by punk bitch piece of shit 3 · 0 0

Read: Susan Neiman "Evil In Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy." Great insights into the development and limits of deism in modernity.

2007-05-03 08:26:58 · answer #5 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 0 0

I do agree that it is consistent with logic. I just don't find the argument for it particularly compelling. You are basically buying the Intelligent Design argument in a logical way.

2007-05-03 08:27:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Deism? Plant a seed, any seed, in soil. I assume you understand, through former experience, that the planted seed, under the good auspices of soil, sun, air, and water, will germinate into a perfect representative of its kind (and only its kind), in time.

The principles uncovered by Albert Einstein that govern the relationship between mass, gravity, time, and the curvature of space to produce black holes have been in perfect operation just as eternally before his discovery of those principles as is the frequency upon which you enjoy listening to your favorite music; indeed, existent ever since the Universe cooled it into resonance along with the infinite gradations of frequency radiating beside it.

(And they operate perfectly whether or not you doubt or have faith in the Universe’s operation)

As for logic, can logic force 2+2 to be anything other than its correct answer or force the seed you plant to be anything other than its kind? Recently, I happened to be looking at a blue writing pen inside a plastic cup holding various other objects. I had paid no particular attention to it until then. It occurred to me, while I was looking at the pen, to wonder why the color of the pen was blue. That got me to thinking that, strangely enough, if I had been taught that the color was red, or green, or whatever, I would be saying that the pen was colored red, or green, or whatever. I mentioned this to my friend, (who speaks Arabic, French, and English), that even in any other language, for that matter, the idea of the color blue is easily communicated and the speakers and listeners understand what "blue" is. Even translating from English to another language, the concept of "blue" is understood. What struck me about this casual observation was that we, as transmitters and receivers of meaning in our various languages, are taught, from childhood on, to AGREE upon the assignment of meaning (such as "when you see such and such a color, it is blue”). Until that unguarded moment, upon casually observing a pen in a plastic holder, it had not really struck me what a hold the habitual assignment of the meaning "blue" had on my thinking. Not only did I realize that "blue" is simply a concept taught to me from childhood on, and re-taught every time I see "blue", but I realized that the framework of assigned concepts I call my world view is similarly reengergized every waking moment (that's a nice shade of blue; Gee, I love listening to the....blues; this fabric is sky blue; but that garment over there is turquoise). Imagine what it would be like to enjoy listening to the, say "reds", or being pink with envy! I learned in that short moment, that the concept of "blue" does not apply to the reality of the pen's existence just because I habitually recite the NAME I've been taught for its attributes. That's when it occurred to me what is meant by the phrases "The map is not the territory. The name is not the thing".

As for religion and the books many faiths utilize to codify the tenants of their faith, I believe that these tools, whether called the Quran, or the Torah, or the Bible, or the Upanishads, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the spoken traditions, Mother Nature, or what have you, these are nothing more than manuals, PREPATORY INSTRUCTIONS for the real lessons. These tools are only maps pointing back to THAT inside of us from which the real inspiration, and direction comes. They are not the word of God....WE are the word of GOD...MADE FLESH! The "manual" is written (not "in"), but AS our very being. Our own being is the "book" to learn from. That's why we don't have to go anywhere else for the answers (as Paramahansa Yogananda relates in his Book “Autobiography of a Yogi”, describing how he finally learned to go within himself, instead of continually seeking a guru in the Himalayan caves. Ironically, even if he had been told to go seek amongst the snowy caves for a teacher he still would have had to bring HIMSELF THERE.)
Again, the map is not the territory.

And what will you discover within your very self? That is, after you realize that everything outside yourself is a MIRROR of yourself? Living is the practical experience in being the I AM. It wasn't really your driving manual or your Dad who taught you how to drive, any more than those so-called holy books can teach you how to live. You learned how to drive by hearing, feeling, and SMELLING the gears grind in protest....and THEN slowly experiencing, through your OWN UNASSISTED EFFORT, what the tool (called the automobile) is supposed to do when you operate it "masterfully". Another may tell you or show you, but YOU must do the work! The same with your very own Spirit, which, being your portion of the Father, Himself, will take you to inner destinations, the likes of which are not to be found in ANY book. YOU are the Holy Book! Things don’t happen to you. They happen AS you.

The extent of your faith should be what you have found to be true in your own experience, regardless whether you can prove its validity to a single other soul. Because the very principles that perfectly and scientifically govern the germination of seeds, the formation of black holes, the sound of music, the addition of 2+2, and even what appears to you as a “blue” pen, also operate to perfectly present your experience of these phenomena to YOURSELF. We look with our eyes, but we SEE with our i-deas!.....

Whether or not you codify your experience as Deism.

2007-05-03 09:18:58 · answer #7 · answered by guthrio 5 · 0 1

im currently floating between deism and pantheism... so i understand your journey... its a tough one and one you must do on your own

2007-05-03 09:31:22 · answer #8 · answered by jannah b 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers