Post Reference
Jason,
Unable to find where you stated as marg quoted you, I’ll reproduce how she quoted you and respond.
Jason wrote as cited by marg:
I do not understand Deism other than in general. My understanding is it does away with a need for organized religion but it does not prohibit one from participating in it if one wishes to do so. But perhaps a belief that God may or may not use organized religion steps outside the philosophy.
Deism as referenced by this on-line source
JAK
Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
marg,
I found this website on deism. It seems a curious oxymoron.
“God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion” is the sub-title. It appears to take on the general attributes of religion as it makes a variety of claims absent “reason.”
For example:
“Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a ‘revealed’ religion.”
“The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the ‘revealed’ religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
“When enough people become Deists, reason will be elevated over fear and myth and its positive qualities will become a part of society as a whole.”
There are many more on this website as you may view. Based on this website, it does not seem to me “deism” as described offers much of value. It seems as if it is one claim piled on another. However, it appears to be a main website. Some of the definitions may seem reasonable, but they generally fall short of what Wiki offers for terms listed under this website.
My intent is not to argue with what it states. Religious Tolerance is similar yet not entirely parallel in its website on deism.
JAK
I found this website on deism. It seems a curious oxymoron.
“God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion” is the sub-title. It appears to take on the general attributes of religion as it makes a variety of claims absent “reason.”
For example:
“Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a ‘revealed’ religion.”
“The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the ‘revealed’ religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
“When enough people become Deists, reason will be elevated over fear and myth and its positive qualities will become a part of society as a whole.”
There are many more on this website as you may view. Based on this website, it does not seem to me “deism” as described offers much of value. It seems as if it is one claim piled on another. However, it appears to be a main website. Some of the definitions may seem reasonable, but they generally fall short of what Wiki offers for terms listed under this website.
My intent is not to argue with what it states. Religious Tolerance is similar yet not entirely parallel in its website on deism.
JAK
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
JAK wrote:Brackite wrote: A Single Male who is Masturbating over (looking) at a Single Female is not consider committing adultery within his heart, Since a Single Male sleeping with a Single Female is not committing the Biblical definition of adultery. Hence, Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) Never condemned the Practice of Masturbation.
Is this supposed to make literal or figurative sense?
“Biblical” anything is subject to conflicting opinion. Hence, conclusions asserted are irrelevant.
The Roman Catholic Church “condemns” any sex or sexual gratification outside of marriage where two and only two, one male/one female are participants.
JAK
The word ‘adultery’ is first mentioned in the Bible, within Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 14.
Here is Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 14:
Exodus 20:14: (New American Standard Bible:
14 "(A)You shall not commit adultery.
We can find the Biblical definition of adultery found within these the Bible Passages of Leviticus Chapter 18, Verse 20, Leviticus Chapter 20, Verse 20, and Deuteronomy Chapter 22, Verses 22 through 24.
Here are these three Bible Passages:
Leviticus 18:20: (New American Standard Bible):
20 '(A)You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her.
Leviticus 20:10: (New American Standard Bible):
10 '(A)If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:22-24: (New American Standard Bible):
22 "(A)If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
23 "(B)If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Here is the definition of adultery, From the Wikipedia Article on adultery:
Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not that person's spouse. In most cases and especially in Western countries, only the married party is said to have committed adultery, and if both parties are married (but not to each other) then they both commit separate acts of adultery. In other countries, both parties to the adultery are considered guilty, while in others again only the woman is able to commit adultery and to be considered guilty. In some cases it is only considered adultery when a married woman has sexual relations with someone without the permission of her husband.
Adultery is also referred to as extramarital sex, philandery, or infidelity, but does not include fornication. The term "adultery" for many people carries a moral or religious association, while the term "extramarital sex" is morally or judgmentally neutral.
The definition of adultery did Not include a Single Male having a sexual relationship with a Single Female.
Hence, I was truly correct when I stated here:
Brackite wrote: A Single Male who is Masturbating over (looking) at a Single Female is not consider committing adultery within his heart, Since a Single Male sleeping with a Single Female is not committing the Biblical definition of adultery. Hence, Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) Never condemned the Practice of Masturbation.
<>
<>
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
Brackite,
First, your selection of biblical quotes is interesting in what you appear to disregard.
Example from your references:
Deuteronomy 22:22-24: (New American Standard Bible):
22 "(A)If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
23 "(B)If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Since you make the citations, I presume you think “…both of them shall die…”
“…you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death…”
While attempting to be technical on a singular term (adultery), you appear to ignore the command as to what is to be done to people. Do you favor “…and you stone them to death…”? The “you” here has to be people. Would you, personally, participate in the command of the Deuteronomy text you cite? If not, why not? It’s very clear as to what is to be done to “both” people in your biblical citing. The text even provides the causal claim.
Second, you appear to be so exclusive and literal in “adultery” that it prompts multiple questions of situation.
For example:
Just what is the literal interpretation you place on verse 22?
You use Wikipedia for definition of “adultery.”
Just what is “sexual intercourse” here? You mix a modern English dictionary with an ancient script which has undergone multiple translations and interpretations over thousands of years. Moreover, the ancient script was always hand written/copied/interpreted prior to the invention of the printing press and the first, first script to be mass produced by the printing press in 1611. Before that, biblical ideas are all talk, individual writing, politics, religious orders, etc.
I call into question any script passed by verbal/copied form. How do we know the copiers or story tellers got it right absolutely? We don’t. You don't. But let’s return to the scene.
Suppose there is sexual foreplay, stimulation which is mutual to the point of sexual orgasm for one or both individuals BUT there is no intercourse. Is that adultery? If it is (as you parse definition), just at what point do we have “adultery”? Is a long make-out session “adultery”? Is a passionate kiss “adultery”? Is hugging “adultery”? Let’s see your modern dictionary on “sexual intercourse.”
Sexual intercourse according to the same Wikipedia you cite states this:
“Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract.”
By this definition (a source you used), a couple can have satisfying sexual stimulation to the point of orgasm and avoid “sexual intercourse” as defined by your source. Is that correct? It is by your language here. If no “male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract” there was no sexual intercourse. Therefore, there was no “adultery.” That appears to be your biblical position.
Suppose in verse 22 “a man is found lying with a married woman…” just lying with her – he is thinking about intercourse with her and she with him – BUT, they are just “found lying.” Was this “adultery”? Suppose they were preparing to have sexual intercourse (as defined by Wikipedia) but were “found” before the act occurred. Should ”you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death”? What’s your position on this scene, Brackite? What does the Bible say on this?
We would all agree that masturbation is not sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, masturbation is explicitly forbidden by the largest Christian demonination in the world, the Roman Catholic Church and by various Protestant churches.
By your technical distinctions as a reality in sexual encounters, the female can by hand or oral manipulation bring a male to orgasm. The “male reproductive organ” did not enter “the female reproductive tract.”
Hence, there was no adultery all other specifications being applicable. The couple was not married (to each other). One member (either one) may be married to another person. But there was no adultery according to your source cited above for “sexual intercourse.”
Modern definitions muddy the water as your source also states: “Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman.” Does this definition beg the question? What is the “natural endpoint…”?
If the potentially adulterous couple decides in advance there will be no “male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract,” and at the same time agrees to mutual sexual stimulation to orgasm, this is not “adultery.” It fails to meet the primary definition of sexual intercourse.
Your source above on “sexual intercourse” also states: “In recent years, penetration of non-sexual organs (oral intercourse, anal intercourse) or by non-sexual organs (fingering, fisting) are also sometimes included in this definition.”
“Sometimes included” and sometimes not included by definition of “sometimes.” Then there is “in recent years.” Certainly, thousands of years in the past cannot be considered “recent years” in the context of the definition.
So we have further begging of the question. Is 100 years “recent years”? Or is it 20 years? Or is it 500 years? Regardless of the number of years, “sometimes” is not exclusive as part of the Wikipedia definition.
From the same source, we have this: “The word sex, in the context of sexual intimacy, is often, if not universally, understood to include any mutual genital stimulation, i.e. both intercourse and outercourse.”
“Outercourse” is an interesting “term.” We don’t find that in Deuteronomy.
Leviticus confirms the death sentence:
Leviticus 20:10: (New American Standard Bible):
10 '(A)If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
How do you know the following:
Brackite wrote:
A Single Male who is Masturbating over (looking) at a Single Female is not consider committing adultery within his heart, Since a Single Male sleeping with a Single Female is not committing the Biblical definition of adultery. Hence, Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) Never condemned the Practice of Masturbation.
Genesis 38:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
8Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.
10But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
So just what’s going on here? Onan is just performing his duty having sexual intercourse with his brother’s wife. He then does withdrawal having a sexual orgasm “wasted his seed on the ground…” AND, God “took his life…” It could be well-argued that he used his brother’s wife for his own sexual gratification. Whatever it was, God killed him (KJV).
Your biblical definition of “adultery” is strained as you dismiss without a word the consequences as prescribed by the same biblical scripts.
Here God killed him. In other passages cited by you, you (the people) are to do the killing.
You, Brackite, are not correct in omitting the instruction in these scripts which command killing. Nor have you elucidated on the particulars to which I have raised question regarding “adultery” as your interpretation of the Bible.
JAK
First, your selection of biblical quotes is interesting in what you appear to disregard.
Example from your references:
Deuteronomy 22:22-24: (New American Standard Bible):
22 "(A)If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
23 "(B)If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Since you make the citations, I presume you think “…both of them shall die…”
“…you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death…”
While attempting to be technical on a singular term (adultery), you appear to ignore the command as to what is to be done to people. Do you favor “…and you stone them to death…”? The “you” here has to be people. Would you, personally, participate in the command of the Deuteronomy text you cite? If not, why not? It’s very clear as to what is to be done to “both” people in your biblical citing. The text even provides the causal claim.
Second, you appear to be so exclusive and literal in “adultery” that it prompts multiple questions of situation.
For example:
Just what is the literal interpretation you place on verse 22?
You use Wikipedia for definition of “adultery.”
Just what is “sexual intercourse” here? You mix a modern English dictionary with an ancient script which has undergone multiple translations and interpretations over thousands of years. Moreover, the ancient script was always hand written/copied/interpreted prior to the invention of the printing press and the first, first script to be mass produced by the printing press in 1611. Before that, biblical ideas are all talk, individual writing, politics, religious orders, etc.
I call into question any script passed by verbal/copied form. How do we know the copiers or story tellers got it right absolutely? We don’t. You don't. But let’s return to the scene.
Suppose there is sexual foreplay, stimulation which is mutual to the point of sexual orgasm for one or both individuals BUT there is no intercourse. Is that adultery? If it is (as you parse definition), just at what point do we have “adultery”? Is a long make-out session “adultery”? Is a passionate kiss “adultery”? Is hugging “adultery”? Let’s see your modern dictionary on “sexual intercourse.”
Sexual intercourse according to the same Wikipedia you cite states this:
“Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract.”
By this definition (a source you used), a couple can have satisfying sexual stimulation to the point of orgasm and avoid “sexual intercourse” as defined by your source. Is that correct? It is by your language here. If no “male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract” there was no sexual intercourse. Therefore, there was no “adultery.” That appears to be your biblical position.
Suppose in verse 22 “a man is found lying with a married woman…” just lying with her – he is thinking about intercourse with her and she with him – BUT, they are just “found lying.” Was this “adultery”? Suppose they were preparing to have sexual intercourse (as defined by Wikipedia) but were “found” before the act occurred. Should ”you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death”? What’s your position on this scene, Brackite? What does the Bible say on this?
We would all agree that masturbation is not sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, masturbation is explicitly forbidden by the largest Christian demonination in the world, the Roman Catholic Church and by various Protestant churches.
By your technical distinctions as a reality in sexual encounters, the female can by hand or oral manipulation bring a male to orgasm. The “male reproductive organ” did not enter “the female reproductive tract.”
Hence, there was no adultery all other specifications being applicable. The couple was not married (to each other). One member (either one) may be married to another person. But there was no adultery according to your source cited above for “sexual intercourse.”
Modern definitions muddy the water as your source also states: “Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman.” Does this definition beg the question? What is the “natural endpoint…”?
If the potentially adulterous couple decides in advance there will be no “male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract,” and at the same time agrees to mutual sexual stimulation to orgasm, this is not “adultery.” It fails to meet the primary definition of sexual intercourse.
Your source above on “sexual intercourse” also states: “In recent years, penetration of non-sexual organs (oral intercourse, anal intercourse) or by non-sexual organs (fingering, fisting) are also sometimes included in this definition.”
“Sometimes included” and sometimes not included by definition of “sometimes.” Then there is “in recent years.” Certainly, thousands of years in the past cannot be considered “recent years” in the context of the definition.
So we have further begging of the question. Is 100 years “recent years”? Or is it 20 years? Or is it 500 years? Regardless of the number of years, “sometimes” is not exclusive as part of the Wikipedia definition.
From the same source, we have this: “The word sex, in the context of sexual intimacy, is often, if not universally, understood to include any mutual genital stimulation, i.e. both intercourse and outercourse.”
“Outercourse” is an interesting “term.” We don’t find that in Deuteronomy.
Leviticus confirms the death sentence:
Leviticus 20:10: (New American Standard Bible):
10 '(A)If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
How do you know the following:
Brackite wrote:
A Single Male who is Masturbating over (looking) at a Single Female is not consider committing adultery within his heart, Since a Single Male sleeping with a Single Female is not committing the Biblical definition of adultery. Hence, Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) Never condemned the Practice of Masturbation.
Genesis 38:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
8Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.
10But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
So just what’s going on here? Onan is just performing his duty having sexual intercourse with his brother’s wife. He then does withdrawal having a sexual orgasm “wasted his seed on the ground…” AND, God “took his life…” It could be well-argued that he used his brother’s wife for his own sexual gratification. Whatever it was, God killed him (KJV).
Your biblical definition of “adultery” is strained as you dismiss without a word the consequences as prescribed by the same biblical scripts.
Here God killed him. In other passages cited by you, you (the people) are to do the killing.
You, Brackite, are not correct in omitting the instruction in these scripts which command killing. Nor have you elucidated on the particulars to which I have raised question regarding “adultery” as your interpretation of the Bible.
JAK
-
_Paul Osborne
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
JAK,
I guarantee you that Brackite is going to continue to JAK-off no matter how you interpret or present scripture.
Now, I'm not going to provide any sound effects for this post lest Shades gets upset and deletes those parts. He tends to be squeamish and has tenders ears.
MASTURBATION is a fact of life even though it don't make babies.
Paul O
I guarantee you that Brackite is going to continue to JAK-off no matter how you interpret or present scripture.
Now, I'm not going to provide any sound effects for this post lest Shades gets upset and deletes those parts. He tends to be squeamish and has tenders ears.
MASTURBATION is a fact of life even though it don't make babies.
Paul O
-
_marg
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
JAK wrote:marg,
I found this website on deism. It seems a curious oxymoron.
“God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion” is the sub-title. It appears to take on the general attributes of religion as it makes a variety of claims absent “reason.”
For example:
“Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a ‘revealed’ religion.”
“The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the ‘revealed’ religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”
“When enough people become Deists, reason will be elevated over fear and myth and its positive qualities will become a part of society as a whole.”
There are many more on this website as you may view. Based on this website, it does not seem to me “deism” as described offers much of value. It seems as if it is one claim piled on another. However, it appears to be a main website. Some of the definitions may seem reasonable, but they generally fall short of what Wiki offers for terms listed under this website.
My intent is not to argue with what it states. Religious Tolerance is similar yet not entirely parallel in its website on deism.
[color=blue]JAK[/color]
JAK, I see value in Deism because it doesn't assume that any text or any person or group speaks on behalf of a God, nor that a God interferes in the affairs of mankind. So a person then is responsible for their own decisions rather than to blindly accept religious authority.
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
marg wrote:So a person then is responsible for their own decisions rather than to blindly accept religious authority.
What about blindly accepting legislative authority? federal government authority? employer authority? police authority? professorial authority? a Dean's authority?
Is that okay?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
JAK wrote:While attempting to be technical on a singular term (adultery), you appear to ignore the command as to what is to be done to people. Do you favor “…and you stone them to death…”? The “you” here has to be people. Would you, personally, participate in the command of the Deuteronomy text you cite? If not, why not? It’s very clear as to what is to be done to “both” people in your biblical citing. The text even provides the causal claim.
...
JAK
Nope! And Aren’t You familiar with the story in the New Testament, within the Gospel of John where Jesus Christ (Yeshua of Nazareth) intervenes in the stoning of an adulteress Woman.
Here is John Chapter eight, Verses one through eleven:
John 8:1-11: (New American Standard Bible):
John 8:
The Adulterous Woman
1 But Jesus went to (A)the Mount of Olives.
2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and (B)He sat down and began to teach them.
3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
5 "Now in the Law (C)Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
6 They were saying this, (D)testing Him, (E)so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
7 But when they persisted in asking Him, (F)He straightened up, and said to them, "(G)He who is without sin among you, let him be the (H)first to throw a stone at her."
8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
10 (I)Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "(J)I do not condemn you, either Go From now on (K)sin no more."]
And Since You have Mentioned the Catholic Church a lot on this Thread, and how important that Church that Church is in regards to Christianity, there is an important group of Catholics called, "Catholics Against Capital Punishment" that are a group against the death penalty.
Here is some information from one of their Web Site Pages:
...
Q: Doesn't the Bible support the death penalty (an eye for an eye, respecting the authority of the state, etc.)?
A: The Hebrew scriptures call for the death penalty for many offenses, including being disrespectful toward your parents, using God's name in vain, and adultery. The saying "an eye for an eye" was meant to limit punishment to no more than what would restore the community, and not to call for excessive punishment.
God's own punishment to Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was not death, but banishment. And a special mark was given to Cain, so no others would harm him.
The New Testament message of Our Savior underscores the rich Catholic tradition of respect for life and repaying evil with love. Jesus confronted the would-be executioners of the adulteress (John 8) and forgave those who were crucifying Him (Luke 23:34). He preached about life in abundance and forgiveness and urged non-violent ways to confront violence and evil in passages such as:
Matt 5:38 (When injured, turn the other cheek)
Matt 7 (to avoid judgment, stop passing judgment)
Matt 20:1-14 (the laborers in the vineyard: the last shall be first, and the first last)
Matt 25-35-40 (The Last Judgment: what you do to the least among you, you do for Me)
Luke 6:35-37 (love your enemy and do not condemn)
Luke 15:11-32 (the Prodigal Son)
John 1 (the law was received through Moses; grace came through Jesus Christ)
Acts 7:60 (Stephen's martyrdom)
Romans 7:4 (we are "dead" to the law through the body of Jesus Christ)
Romans 12:14-19 (vengeance is to be left to God)
Galatians 3:23-24 (by virtue of faith in Jesus, the law is no longer in charge)
...
(CACP:)
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
Post Reference
marg,
What you say is correct. However, as defined in numerous places, deism assumes God. In so claiming, deists inherently assume the requirement to offer implications made by their claim. So, what do they say? That is, how may we interrogate deists? It appears that most are loath to offer particulars.
Reviewing the quote from my source:
“God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion” is the sub-title. It appears to take on the general attributes of religion as it makes a variety of claims absent “reason.”
“God Gave Us Reason” assumes God. Therefore, we must interrogate the deist on the particulars of the claim God.
JAK
marg,
What you say is correct. However, as defined in numerous places, deism assumes God. In so claiming, deists inherently assume the requirement to offer implications made by their claim. So, what do they say? That is, how may we interrogate deists? It appears that most are loath to offer particulars.
Reviewing the quote from my source:
“God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion” is the sub-title. It appears to take on the general attributes of religion as it makes a variety of claims absent “reason.”
“God Gave Us Reason” assumes God. Therefore, we must interrogate the deist on the particulars of the claim God.
JAK
-
_Jason Bourne
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
Re: Mormon, Porn, and Masturbation. (Easy now, Paul)
marg wrote:
Ok. I stated with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I am down to the history part. So yes it seems deism eschews a belief that God interferes in the affairs of human kind. Yet some Deists, it seems were (are) Christians.
It also seems that one can hold to Deism yet still have a wide variety of beliefs.
According to his site Deism does not necessarily hold that God had abandoned His creation:
http://www.moderndeism.com/
Again deism seems to allow for a wide variety of beliefs but one seemingly fundamental component is that beliefs should be based on reason:
Here are some "tenants" of Deism:
Well that is a start.
Edited to add:
NOTE COMMENTS MOVED TO A NEW THREAD ON DEISM.
An atheist can participate in an organized religion. A belief that a God may use organized religion is not consistent with deism which is a belief in a non interfering with mankind sort of entity.
Ok. I stated with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I am down to the history part. So yes it seems deism eschews a belief that God interferes in the affairs of human kind. Yet some Deists, it seems were (are) Christians.
Individual deists varied in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued. Some deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original form of Christianity – that is, Christianity as it existed before it was corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the doctrine of the Trinity[citation needed]. Some deists rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher (see, e.g., Thomas Jefferson's famous Jefferson Bible and Matthew Tindal's 'Christianity as Old as the Creation'). Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists with atheism.
It also seems that one can hold to Deism yet still have a wide variety of beliefs.
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs – such as by miracles and revelations, but not necessarily. These views contrast with a dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Judeo-Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.
According to his site Deism does not necessarily hold that God had abandoned His creation:
http://www.moderndeism.com/
It must be noted that Deism has been defined as the religion in which God abandoned the creation. This was rarely the case. During the Second Great Awakening, Deism was attacked by the revialists who wanted to degrade its influence. They created the notion that Deists believed that God had created and then abandoned his creation in favor of greater things. No Deists truly believed this. Some believed that God was no longer active in creation but had not abandoned it but watched to observe.
Again deism seems to allow for a wide variety of beliefs but one seemingly fundamental component is that beliefs should be based on reason:
As with the past, modern Deists have many different beliefs regarding the nature of God. This is because that nature can never truly be known but only infered from our perspective. As such, there are many different beliefs among Deists regarding what God may or may not be like. This is encouraged as Deists want all to use their own Reason and Experiences to develop their views on God and associated aspects.
This causes Modern Deism to be a belief system that thrives on diversity of thought. Deism is based on Reason and Reason tells us that humans are freethinkers that will develop their own beliefs. Therefore, Deists have a common belief in God based on Reason but the view into the nature of God varies among Deists as this nature is generally unknown to us at this time.
Here are some "tenants" of Deism:
While there are no “official” tenets of Deism, many of the following “unofficial” tenets might be the best way to introduce generally accepted beliefs within Deism. The unofficial tenets of Deism are:
1. Belief in God based on Reason, Experience and Nature (nature of the universe) rather than on the basis of holy texts and divine revelation. Essentially, through the use of Reason, God’s existence is revealed by the observation of the order and complexity found within nature and our personal experiences.
2. Belief that the nature of God is abstract and generally incomprehensible which puts it beyond definition for humanity at this time. Furthermore, human language is limited and inadequate to define God; however, man can use Reason to theorize and speculate on what this possible nature is.
3. Belief that mans relationship with God is transpersonal. However, this does not create a feeling of a distant and cold deity but of one in which God has a profound and unfathomable relationship with all of creation (nature) rather than just one aspect of it.
4. Belief that humanity has the ability to use Reason to develop ethical/moral principles and through the application of Reason these principles can be used to implement moral behavior, which in turn creates a Utilitarian-Humanist morality. Essentially, humans can be guided by their conscience in matters of morality.
5. Belief that humans have the individual capability of experiencing God, which is defined as spirituality. These spiritual experiences are multi-faceted and can include awe, epiphany, fellowship and even the transcendental. Essentially, each human is capable of having a profound experience of God and nature.
6. Belief that God should be honored in a way that the individual believes is best and most appropriate for them. Individuals must determine for themselves how best to honor God and only they can develop how to accomplish this. For many, it is a multi-faceted and an individualized process.
7. Belief in the principle of Natural Law that states that all men and women are created equal to each other with inherent freedom and liberty so that no human has more worth than another. Essentially, each human is equal in terms of the freedoms that they have and in the eyes of the law.
8. Belief that mankind’s purpose is to use our God-given reason to understand what it means to be alive in every sense of the word (to live life to the fullest) and to act in such a way as to secure human happiness and contentment for all involved.
9. Belief that Reason and Respect are God-given traits to mankind and that we are to utilize them in all aspects of our daily lives thus creating a pragmatic approach to life. This includes respecting other alternative views and opinions of God (other religions) as long as they do not produce harm and/or infringe upon others.
Well that is a start.
Edited to add:
NOTE COMMENTS MOVED TO A NEW THREAD ON DEISM.
Last edited by Lem on Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.