Posted on 02/17/2011 2:33:25 PM PST by DARCPRYNCE
My name is Edward L. Daley, and I'm what's known as a deist. That is to say that I embrace no particular religious faith, yet I do believe in an eternal creator of all life and existence... as best we understand those terms. I simply do not claim to know the motives or methods of our creator.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
I like the one that says “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved-and your house”. That’s it, now go be nice to each other. That’s the one I like.
***Should we blame God for bestowing free will upon us in the first place, and if we do, isn’t that tantamount to wishing that we were robots?***
No, God is giving fallen man exactly what he wants.
“I would say there is more merit in that than being intentionally wrong. But most people think they are right, so what is so special about that?”
Nothing... nothing at all. In fact, it’s as common as the day is long.
“and yet you offer that it is OK to publicly demean their practice, because it is wrong, and I agree!”
I said just the opposite. You need to re-read my remarks to you.
“Standing up for what is right, against a society that tells me evil behavior is OK”
So you know what’s right, but I can’t possibly know that... correct?
“to tell other people what consists right and wrong, from your own mind, without reference to any higher power”
What higher power did you reference? And don’t say God or even Jesus, because you did neither.
“You have invented a set of rules and beliefs from your own mind.”
No I haven’t. I’ve adopted a set of personal rules for behavior from a great number of sources. The standards by which I live my life are derived from various experiences, people and literary volumes, not the least of which is the Bible itself - both old and new testaments.
I’ve invented nothing.
I’m happy for you. :o)
I looked up the definition of deism in the dictionary - what a surprise! Could the “dark prince” be attempting to fill the void with politically correct and morally relativistic gibberish? Just asking...
JC
“I looked up the definition of deism in the dictionary - what a surprise! Could the “dark prince” be attempting to fill the void with politically correct and morally relativistic gibberish? Just asking...”
He just might be. Of course, I wouldn’t know because I’m not the “dark prince” of which you speak. DarcPrynce is just a computer handle I’ve used for over a decade, and my adoption of it had nothing to do with religion, God or spiritual concepts of any sort.
That is generally appraised as a noble sentiment. I was tempted to ask you precisely how you would define "hateful." Looking over some of your other posts, I will conjecture that you would respond by saying that you would define it as the dictionary defines it. Although I can only guess which dictionary you would be referring to, I looked it up in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The possibilities were as follows:
Have you ever heard anyone state their intention to speak or behave in a way that would be deserving of hate? Neither have I. Nor have I ever encountered a person who said that they planned to speak or behave in a manner that was full of hate. Even the people we have seen who seem to be attempting to arouse hate probably wouldn't admit to it. Nearly everyone would say that they would "endeavor to refrain from speaking or behaving hatefully." Perhaps there is a gap between the intention and the reality...
Other than the word "hate," these three definitions of "hateful" do have one thing in common: they are all subjective. To illustrate this, consider the threads on FR concerning Mormonism. Evangelical Christians will often make assertions on these threads to the effect that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Sometimes Mormons on those threads will make a reply to the effect that the Evangelical Christians were being hateful.
Now, if a person believes that 1) Joseph Smith was in fact a fraud, and 2) the teachings of the LDS church regarding God and Jesus would steer a person away from a saving faith and towards eternal damnation, then a failure to advocate these beliefs would be the most uncaring and, well, hateful thing that person could do. On the other hand, if someone believes that 1) Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and 2) obedience to the teachings of the LDS church will result in salvation, then the posts of the Evangelical Christians could well be perceived as defaming, and as hateful.
So, lacking what scientists call an "operational definition" of words like "hateful", "demeaning," "degrading," or "defaming," I am left only with how I feel about what someone else says or does. Does it make me angry? Does it make me scared? Does it make me feel like it would make someone else angry or scared? Then I guess it must be hateful.
In my earlier post, I referred to I Corinthians 10:20. Many people today would consider that to be a hateful statement by a hateful person who embraced a hateful religion. Does that make it so? They certainly feel that way.
And if you base your definition of "a good religion" on those words, then it would seem to come down to nothing more than "a good religion, as I see it, is one whose practitioners don't upset me," and, "if you don't bother me, I won't bother you; that's why my religion is a good religion."
Speaking of hate...
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. (John 15:17-25, KJV)For an example of unswerving, perfect love, I look to Jesus. As He was preparing to lay down His life for sinners like me, the world judged Him to be hateful. There were probably plenty of people who judged Him to be "demeaning," "degrading," or "defaming" their "good" religion. A few of them may have been convinced that He deserved to die for that reason.
Some people may find my remarks to be "hateful, "demeaning," "degrading," or "defaming." That's fine: my God told me not to expect them to think that mine is a "good" religion (as you see it).
What you say is correct but Christianity has little to do with Natural Law Theory and God’s Law, although Aquinas aligned Catholic Theory to its logic and reason in the 13th century. That is the beauty of our government—this is a quote from the “Greatest Lawyer of All”— Marcus Tullius Cicero
(He tried to save the Republic of Rome. His ideas would have if they were put into practice.) Note: this is written long before Christianity.
“Power and the law are not synonymous. In truth they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God’s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God’s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man’s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it.
Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and , if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy that government which attempt to adjudicate by the whim or power of venal judges.”
The first thing the Progressives (Wilson) did when in power is to pervert the laws of this nation, stack the courts with subversives (progressive/marxists) who instituted man-made laws that went against Natural Law Theory to create centralized power and remove us from God-Given Rights. It is all unconstitutional.
Clarence Thomas is the Judge with the most profound understanding of Natural Law Theory and that is why he was vehemently opposed, like Bork, who also understood the corrupted courts.
Fair enough.
But that is the point that I am trying to make. Your criteria are perfectly valid, but you are the one who is defining them. As you say - "As I understand those concepts".
Merely expressing my opinions as to what is or is not good human behavior in no way implies a deistic quality in me.
True, it does not. But you have already declared that you are, in fact, a deist. When I point out the consequences of that position, your response is to deny that your statements imply deism. Aren't you really dancing in and out of the argument there?
That would be like saying that a Rabi is setting himself up to be a god for simply expressing his views along the same lines. The only difference between myself and a Rabi in this respect is that my criteria for defining good and bad are somewhat different than his.
No it isn't the same. Not at all. Because a Rabbi, or a Christian, "leans not on his own understanding". In other words, the basis for your belief is merely your own experiences and thoughts (and possibly the wisdom of others), whereas the basis for the Rabbis is the word of almighty God AND his own experiences and thoughts (because we all of us are far from heaven, and sinfully insist doing it our way rather than Gods).
I presuppose no such thing. I actually do believe that many people experience a personal revelation not born entirely of reason which leads them to truth. I simply admit that I have yet to experience such myself. Please do not assume that because I’m not, say, a Christian, that I don’t understand or appreciate that such spiritual revelations as you’ve remarked upon exist.
Fair enough, I apologise if I impugned the belief that there is no truth but what you can taste, smell, touch, see and hear to you. But - the original point stands. My definition of the way deists arrive at their conclusions is accurate. You agree that "many people experience a personal revelation not born entirely of reason which leads them to truth." And you also admit to not having such an experience yourself yet. Therefore, it follows that there is a whole aspect of religion that you are simply unaquainted with.
I would suggest, if you are serious about examining these matters, that you ask [whatever it is you believe to be God] to provide that experience.
How do you knkow that God never arevealed the Gospel to that person because he knew they either (a) wouldn't accept it or (b) are not of the elect.
And not have any responsibility towards worship nor commitment to God which is actually rather insipid.
“How do you knkow that God never arevealed the Gospel to that person because he knew they either (a) wouldn’t accept it or (b) are not of the elect.”
In the first place, I don’t KNOW, but are you suggesting that God has imbued certain people with knowledge of his word (as written in the Bible) that he didn’t imbue the rest of us with? After all, if God wanted us all to just know his word, why would he bother inspiring certain people to write the Bible in the first place?
Secondly, if God knows who will and who will not accept his word at the onset, what reason could he have for allowing some non-believers to read or hear them, while denying others that privilege?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the concept of free will is based upon the premise that we are free to act, as we see fit, on the knowledge we’ve gained. If we are denied certain knowledge, how can we freely choose to accept or deny it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.