What is Christian Deism?

[Mislilac]

What are Christian Deist beliefs?
On god?
On morals?
On Jesus Christ?
On anything else you want to share?

I ask here as opposed to reading it off the Internet because I would like to hear some of your personal beliefs as well. Also no offense to anyone who believes in this phiolosophy/religion: I thought that Deism and revealed religions was uncompatible. Please clarify that for me.

Thanks.

[gainesvillecathy]

There are so many facets pertaining to your questions that it is probably most effective for you to scan the topics in this forum and read the opinions of the members there that are specific to your curiosities.

This is a very complex topic. Enjoy your reading!

[mystic444]

Christian Deism is not like a 'denomination' of Christianity, with established dogmas and catechisms. Our beliefs on God, for instance, probably run the same gamut as Deism in general. Our views on Jesus himself will also vary. In general, I think it would be fair to say that none of us believe in the Bible as an inerrant and infallibly authoritative "word of God". We don't believe in any "infallible authorities". But we nevertheless recognize that certain people throughout history have had outstanding moral character and spiritual insight, resulting in a profound influence on society and culture - both in their own and future generations. Jesus was certainly one of the most outstanding of those moral and spiritual 'lights', and we find a great deal of pleasure in studying what the records we have say about his life and teachings.

We recognize that the writers of the Gospels have a good deal of conflict in the way they recount the stories of Jesus' life and his words, and none of them individually or all of them put together gives an exhaustive account. Therefore we look to the 'spirit' of the message of those writers, rather than to the 'letter' or literal story. Some of us believe more of the story and teachings than others.

It seems that most Christian Deists believe that the apostle Paul was sort of the archenemy of the 'true' Christian teachings, creating his own offshoot which is more properly labeled "Paulianity". I personally don't accept that characterization of Paul and his message. My reading of his letters leads me to believe he was in all essential respects 'one' with the other apostles (Peter, James, and John for instance); but later "Christianity" greatly distorted the "New Testament" writings to come up with 'doctrines' that were foreign to all of those apostles. It is the distortions which are known as 'orthodox' Christianity today; and in my opinion it is the distortions of Paul that make it appear that he was in opposition to the other apostles. I no longer see the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament; nor do I see the doctrines of 'original sin' (all men condemned because of the sin of one man, Adam) or of 'substitutionary atonement' (that Jesus Christ endured the 'wrath' of God in the place of either all men or 'God's elect', taking upon himself the penalty of their sins). Other Christian Deists do see those things in the Bible (particularly the New Testament) and rightly reject them. However, it seems to me that if one 'sees' those teachings in Paul, it's hard to avoid 'seeing' them in Peter, James, and John (and Jesus) also.

So while I myself may not be entirely representative of 'Christian Deists' in general, it is also true that 'Christian Deists in general' differ among themselves about as much as other 'Deists in general' do. We agree in admiring Jesus, but we differ to a considerable degree with regard to the things we believe about him and the New Testament. Some will believe that he was crucified and died (or at least had what we today would call a 'near death experience'), and then rose from the dead (or revived after 'near death'); while others will believe that he died, but did not physically 'rise from the dead' or revive from 'near death'. Others may even believe that 'the wrong guy' was crucified, and Jesus left the area - possibly traveling to the Far East (India maybe). Probably none of us accepts the 'virgin birth' as anything more than allegory.

Cathy's suggestion was a good one: read through some of the threads on this 'Christian Deism' forum to get an idea of the various 'flavors' represented. I expect you'll find it interesting, whether or not you want to label yourself in that way. And you're certainly welcome to comment whatever might be your opinion of associating the name 'Christian' with Deism.

[Mislilac]

Christian Deism is not like a 'denomination' of Christianity, with established dogmas and catechisms. Our beliefs on God, for instance, probably run the same gamut as Deism in general. Our views on Jesus himself will also vary. In general, I think it would be fair to say that none of us believe in the Bible as an inerrant and infallibly authoritative "word of God". We don't believe in any "infallible authorities". But we nevertheless recognize that certain people throughout history have had outstanding moral character and spiritual insight, resulting in a profound influence on society and culture - both in their own and future generations. Jesus was certainly one of the most outstanding of those moral and spiritual 'lights', and we find a great deal of pleasure in studying what the records we have say about his life and teachings.

This is pretty much what I thought. A Deist stance on God and nature with a respect for Jesus and his teachings.

We recognize that the writers of the Gospels have a good deal of conflict in the way they recount the stories of Jesus' life and his words, and none of them individually or all of them put together gives an exhaustive account. Therefore we look to the 'spirit' of the message of those writers, rather than to the 'letter' or literal story. Some of us believe more of the story and teachings than others.

Believing in the general message while realising that everyone will put their own twist on it? I can get on board with this.

It seems that most Christian Deists believe that the apostle Paul was sort of the archenemy of the 'true' Christian teachings, creating his own offshoot which is more properly labeled "Paulianity". I personally don't accept that characterization of Paul and his message. My reading of his letters leads me to believe he was in all essential respects 'one' with the other apostles (Peter, James, and John for instance); but later "Christianity" greatly distorted the "New Testament" writings to come up with 'doctrines' that were foreign to all of those apostles. It is the distortions which are known as 'orthodox' Christianity today; and in my opinion it is the distortions of Paul that make it appear that he was in opposition to the other apostles. I no longer see the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament; nor do I see the doctrines of 'original sin' (all men condemned because of the sin of one man, Adam) or of 'substitutionary atonement' (that Jesus Christ endured the 'wrath' of God in the place of either all men or 'God's elect', taking upon himself the penalty of their sins). Other Christian Deists do see those things in the Bible (particularly the New Testament) and rightly reject them. However, it seems to me that if one 'sees' those teachings in Paul, it's hard to avoid 'seeing' them in Peter, James, and John (and Jesus) also.

Your views are anti Christian Orthodox. Do most Christian Deists actually take this stance (I hope not) or is that just your opinion?

So while I myself may not be entirely representative of 'Christian Deists' in general, it is also true that 'Christian Deists in general' differ among themselves about as much as other 'Deists in general' do. We agree in admiring Jesus, but we differ to a considerable degree with regard to the things we believe about him and the New Testament. Some will believe that he was crucified and died (or at least had what we today would call a 'near death experience'), and then rose from the dead (or revived after 'near death'); while others will believe that he died, but did not physically 'rise from the dead' or revive from 'near death'. Others may even believe that 'the wrong guy' was crucified, and Jesus left the area - possibly traveling to the Far East (India maybe). Probably none of us accepts the 'virgin birth' as anything more than allegory.

Interesting stuff. I personally don't think that Jesus was the son of God or anyone supernatural. He was though a moral man with some excellent teachings. The Romans saw him as a revolutionary and had him crucified.

Cathy's suggestion was a good one: read through some of the threads on this 'Christian Deism' forum to get an idea of the various 'flavors' represented. I expect you'll find it interesting, whether or not you want to label yourself in that way. And you're certainly welcome to comment whatever might be your opinion of associating the name 'Christian' with Deism.

[/quote]

I will read through the threads like Cathy said for sure. Personally, I still love the Orthodox Church (I used to be Orthodox) but don't identify with a revealed religion anymore, and probably never will again (whether or not it's Deist Christianity). Deep down, I am an Agnostic more than anything.

Thanks for this very descriptive answer and I would if you don't mind like to hear your response on my post.

[mystic444]

mislilac said:

It seems that most Christian Deists believe that the apostle Paul was sort of the archenemy of the 'true' Christian teachings, creating his own offshoot which is more properly labeled "Paulianity". I personally don't accept that characterization of Paul and his message. My reading of his letters leads me to believe he was in all essential respects 'one' with the other apostles (Peter, James, and John for instance); but later "Christianity" greatly distorted the "New Testament" writings to come up with 'doctrines' that were foreign to all of those apostles. It is the distortions which are known as 'orthodox' Christianity today; and in my opinion it is the distortions of Paul that make it appear that he was in opposition to the other apostles. I no longer see the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament; nor do I see the doctrines of 'original sin' (all men condemned because of the sin of one man, Adam) or of 'substitutionary atonement' (that Jesus Christ endured the 'wrath' of God in the place of either all men or 'God's elect', taking upon himself the penalty of their sins). Other Christian Deists do see those things in the Bible (particularly the New Testament) and rightly reject them. However, it seems to me that if one 'sees' those teachings in Paul, it's hard to avoid 'seeing' them in Peter, James, and John (and Jesus) also.



Your views are anti Christian Orthodox. Do most Christian Deists actually take this stance (I hope not) or is that just your opinion?

Sorry about taking a couple of days to get back to you. I got involved in something else the past couple of days, and didn't even look at Positive Deism.

It seems that the only thing you didn't like about my post was my anti-orthodoxy; and that might be my fault for not defining what I mean by "orthodox". I tend to use the "small 'o'" form to distinguish it from what I would call "capital 'O'" Orthodoxy. By the "capital 'O'" kind I mean churches which have "Orthodox" in their names, like Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. "Small 'o'" orthodoxy to me means simply the creedal positions which define "correct" Christianity. Those creeds began with the Nicene Creed defining the "correct" view of the Deity of Jesus, and developed from there to define "correct" views about the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Substitutionary Atonement by Jesus taking God's wrath in the place of all believers, etc. These creedal beliefs are pretty much common in (non 'liberal') Christian churches today, whether that be Roman Catholic, Orthodoxy (Greek, Russian), or the many branches of Protestantism. Liberal churches, of course, have abandoned much - if not all - of 'orthodox' teachings.

I did not mean to imply that I have some special dislike for Orthodox churches, but that I believe all of the 'traditional' Christian churches, with their 'orthodox' creeds defining what is 'correct', have gone far astray from the actual teachings of Jesus and his 'apostles'. I suspect that all Christian Deists would be 'anti-orthodox' in that sense; but not "anti-Orthodox" in the sense of being especially in opposition to Greek or Russian Orthodox churches (or any other Orthodox church that may exist).

It should be noted, though, that I am not deeply familiar with Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches; so some of those 'doctrines' which I have labeled 'orthodox' may not be held by those churches. My experience has been in the Protestant versions - and not all of those - but it does seem to me that the historical Creeds of Christianity are common to all of those churches.

As I said, though, I can't speak for all Christian Deists about any particular aspects of Christian Deism. I think that what I have said probably fairly represents Christian Deism in a general way.

[Lily]

Your views are anti Christian Orthodox. Do most Christian Deists actually take this stance (I hope not) or is that just your opinion?

I've come to see that the structure and doctrine of the basic Christian church is not what Jesus intended, but is more the result of mankind's inability to fully grasp what was intended. I believe his message was expressed in many different ways that borrowed symbolism from other beliefs in order to help people understand. It was inevitable that at some point, someone would see fit to sort through all the varied tales to determine exactly what Christianity was and was not. Thus the doctrine was established. I don't think there was any deception or malice intended, I just don't think they got it right. While I may reject the doctrine, I don't think that makes me anti-orthodox. Just heretical.

[Mislilac]

mislilac said:

It seems that most Christian Deists believe that the apostle Paul was sort of the archenemy of the 'true' Christian teachings, creating his own offshoot which is more properly labeled "Paulianity". I personally don't accept that characterization of Paul and his message. My reading of his letters leads me to believe he was in all essential respects 'one' with the other apostles (Peter, James, and John for instance); but later "Christianity" greatly distorted the "New Testament" writings to come up with 'doctrines' that were foreign to all of those apostles. It is the distortions which are known as 'orthodox' Christianity today; and in my opinion it is the distortions of Paul that make it appear that he was in opposition to the other apostles. I no longer see the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament; nor do I see the doctrines of 'original sin' (all men condemned because of the sin of one man, Adam) or of 'substitutionary atonement' (that Jesus Christ endured the 'wrath' of God in the place of either all men or 'God's elect', taking upon himself the penalty of their sins). Other Christian Deists do see those things in the Bible (particularly the New Testament) and rightly reject them. However, it seems to me that if one 'sees' those teachings in Paul, it's hard to avoid 'seeing' them in Peter, James, and John (and Jesus) also.



Your views are anti Christian Orthodox. Do most Christian Deists actually take this stance (I hope not) or is that just your opinion?

Sorry about taking a couple of days to get back to you. I got involved in something else the past couple of days, and didn't even look at Positive Deism.

It seems that the only thing you didn't like about my post was my anti-orthodoxy; and that might be my fault for not defining what I mean by "orthodox". I tend to use the "small 'o'" form to distinguish it from what I would call "capital 'O'" Orthodoxy. By the "capital 'O'" kind I mean churches which have "Orthodox" in their names, like Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. "Small 'o'" orthodoxy to me means simply the creedal positions which define "correct" Christianity. Those creeds began with the Nicene Creed defining the "correct" view of the Deity of Jesus, and developed from there to define "correct" views about the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Substitutionary Atonement by Jesus taking God's wrath in the place of all believers, etc. These creedal beliefs are pretty much common in (non 'liberal') Christian churches today, whether that be Roman Catholic, Orthodoxy (Greek, Russian), or the many branches of Protestantism. Liberal churches, of course, have abandoned much - if not all - of 'orthodox' teachings.

I did not mean to imply that I have some special dislike for Orthodox churches, but that I believe all of the 'traditional' Christian churches, with their 'orthodox' creeds defining what is 'correct', have gone far astray from the actual teachings of Jesus and his 'apostles'. I suspect that all Christian Deists would be 'anti-orthodox' in that sense; but not "anti-Orthodox" in the sense of being especially in opposition to Greek or Russian Orthodox churches (or any other Orthodox church that may exist).

It should be noted, though, that I am not deeply familiar with Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches; so some of those 'doctrines' which I have labeled 'orthodox' may not be held by those churches. My experience has been in the Protestant versions - and not all of those - but it does seem to me that the historical Creeds of Christianity are common to all of those churches.

As I said, though, I can't speak for all Christian Deists about any particular aspects of Christian Deism. I think that what I have said probably fairly represents Christian Deism in a general way.

Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for clarifying.