Wouldn't the better name be Jesus Deism

[Ervin]

I was just wandering, wouldnt the more acurate name for so called Christian Deism be Jesus Deism.

I think that Christ is the title in wich the so called Christian Deists don't believe. Plus Christians believe in the Old Testament in wich Christian Deists I assume don't believe.

So I propose that the better name for this form of Deism is Jesus Deism. I would like to propose changing of the name to a more accurate name. Name that I believe makes more sense. Remember there are other Gospels outside the standard bible.

Thanks

[gnomon]

I was just wandering, wouldnt the more acurate name for so called Christian Deism be Jesus Deism.

I agree. The real person known as Jesus of Nazareth could conceivably be considered an early Deist, in the sense that he taught that the Hebrew scriptures were no longer binding on his Jewish contemporaries, and that God was not an imperious tyrant ruling intimidated subjects from his throne in the sky. However, the gentile Christ, described in the letters of Paul, was more like one of the mythical deities of Greek & Roman mystery religions, who fostered favors upon their faithful followers, initiated via strange rites (baptism, communion) into exclusive cults. The allegorical Christ family was eventually promoted to a prominent role as the figurehead of the Roman Church and its protestant offspring, but the Jewish Jesus was relegated to the dustheap of prophets & martyrs, who were without honor in their homelands.

[Varokhâr]

I see what you mean, and agree with it, but the word for "of or like Jesus or his teachings" has always been "Christian", even to those folks who are secular Christians and don't believe in any of the actual "Christ" business.

I suppose it's a paradox we will all have to live with

[gnomon]

I see what you mean, and agree with it, but the word for "of or like Jesus or his teachings" has always been "Christian", even to those folks who are secular Christians and don't believe in any of the actual "Christ" business.

I suppose it's a paradox we will all have to live with

Some people think of themselves as generic Christians, in the vague sense of "good person", regardless of any commitments to specific doctrines.

Christian :
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

[cclendenen]

On the other hand, there are Christians who do not consider Mormons Christian or Jehovah's Witnesses or others who do not adhere to a strict New Testament Christianity. Where I come from a Catholic is only "sorta" Christian.

[TonyHawks 712]

If you're going to create a separate terminology for Deists that believe in Jesus, it would make a difference to what degree you believe in him. If you believe He truly is the Son of God, then Christian Deist would be appropriate. But if you don't believe in his divinity, only the collected wisdom of his quotes and actions, then some other term would be better to distinguish the two. For lack of a better name, Jesus Deists works! It might have more of a ring to it, though, if you called them "Gospel Deists", and you could add some of the collected wisdom of Paul and the other apostles into the mix because there were some excellent ideas expressed BECAUSE of Jesus and not directly from him.

[Helium]

I would argue that Jesus deist and christian deist are one and the same, since by definition, Christian, at least to me, means 'of Christ'.
Further I believe that those who believe in a traditional brand of Christianity, that Jesus was born of a virgin birth and was resurrected are ... Christians. Why would they need to attach 'Deist' to their beliefs.
There's no way you can believe in virgin birth and resurrection and fit in my definition of deist. However, if you still want to call yourself a deist, I, unlike certain others, have no problem with it. You just wouldn't fit into my definition of desim. But I'm good with that. They're only labels after all.
Listen, here's what Christian deism means to me. To me it's actually a useful category, but what it tells me is that the category contains someone, possibly such as myself, who was born and raised in a Christian family, it's my direct heritage, but have come to acknowledge that other world religions are as relevant.

[Inner Prop]

I appreciate the fresh look at this topic. Sometimes turning a thing just slightly gives us a whole new view of it.

I think your point is valid, but I don't think it will catch on.

I think "Jesus" is one of two things:
1. A carpenter
2. That touchy feely, friendly part of GOD that is really looking out for you individually. GOD the Father is concerned with the UNIVERSE and Jesus is your friend and personal savior.

"Christ" is THE Christ, The Messiah, a title, but to many modern thinkers "Christ" is just Jesus' last name.

I don't think there is a convenient, universally accepted term for Jesus The Philosopher, even though there are a great many people, non-Deists included who have that view of him and the philosophy engendered by him. If there were, then THAT term would be most appropriate.

There are 5 ways to look at Jesus Christ:
1. A man named Jesus who was a carpenter
2. My personal savior, Jesus
3. The messiah, Christ
4. A prophet (as the Muslims see him)
5. A philosopher and his associated philosophy

Unfortunately, I don't think the last two have specific titles associated with them.

[siti]

Bula!

How about "Carpenter Deism" then - we could start having our own style of furniture like the Shakers. But seriously, I think Ervin has a point - being a Christian is essentially to accept Jesus as the Christ - any other definition is more to do with belonging than believing. Reminds me of Isaiah 4:1 "We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." (KJV). Since most (if not all) Christian Deists deny the "Christ-ness" of Jesus, and presumably no longer have a desire to belong to mainstream "Christianity", why use the title?

[Inner Prop]

Bula!

How about "Carpenter Deism" then - we could start having our own style of furniture like the Shakers. But seriously, I think Ervin has a point - being a Christian is essentially to accept Jesus as the Christ - any other definition is more to do with belonging than believing. Reminds me of Isaiah 4:1 "We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." (KJV). Since most (if not all) Christian Deists deny the "Christ-ness" of Jesus, and presumably no longer have a desire to belong to mainstream "Christianity", why use the title?

Do we have to sing the songs and starve ourselves to death?

Wait, that's not too far off when I put it that way.

Fasting and hymns vs pop songs and anorexia

jk, really jk!

[TonyHawks 712]

Upon further review, I wonder if this designation is even necessary at all. Is agreeing with the teachings of Jesus really a reason to hyphenate Deism? Not to belittle anyone else's beliefs, but my finding relevance in Sun Tzu's The Art of War doesn't make me a Sun Tzu-Deist. My seeing the logic in the writings of Confucius doesn't make me a Confucian-Deist. And I don't believe that my appreciation for the teachings of Jesus makes me a Christian-, or Jesus-, Deist. It just means I'm a Deist that thinks Jesus was an exceptional human being who shared some wisdom that all mankind can benefit from. Are Christian-Deists saying they believe that the teachings of Jesus are above all other writings and equal to their belief in God, even though they don't acknowledge him as the Son of God? That just doesn't seem logical to me...

[Varokhâr]

Upon further review, I wonder if this designation is even necessary at all. Is agreeing with the teachings of Jesus really a reason to hyphenate Deism? Not to belittle anyone else's beliefs, but my finding relevance in Sun Tzu's The Art of War doesn't make me a Sun Tzu-Deist. My seeing the logic in the writings of Confucius doesn't make me a Confucian-Deist. And I don't believe that my appreciation for the teachings of Jesus makes me a Christian-, or Jesus-, Deist. It just means I'm a Deist that thinks Jesus was an exceptional human being who shared some wisdom that all mankind can benefit from. Are Christian-Deists saying they believe that the teachings of Jesus are above all other writings and equal to their belief in God, even though they don't acknowledge him as the Son of God? That just doesn't seem logical to me...

Very true; I find objective truths in Asatru and Buddhism as well as Catholicism, but I prefer to simply explain that to people if they inquire about my specific beliefs. Otherwise, I just stick with the label of Deist and, as much as I like to clarify things, I accept that it's not easy or even desirable to constantly hyphenate everything in a vain effort to accurately advertise my beliefs and stances from the get-go. Labels are how humans understand and classify things, but not everything is easily labeled and categorized.

I can understand that some folks can accurately call themselves "Christian Deists" because, despite denying the divinity of Jesus, they still affirm the moral teachings of Jesus and also those of various Christian sects and Christian theology heavily shapes their own views on God. Otherwise, for the rest of us who find as much or even more objective truth and personal appeal in other religions, it's better to just stick with the single label of Deist.

I know that, for myself, getting away from feeling the need to hyphenate everything is immensely freeing.