Deism

My New Spiritual Home

Published on January 19, 2006 By JillUser In Religion

I humbly admit that until introduced to the term "Deism" by Myrrander, I had never heard of it. When Myr set forth that I was deist rather than agnostic, I looked into it and indeed he was right. Friends had always referred to me as agnostic so I accepted that term for lack of knowing a more fitting term.

I believe there is a God in the sense that there is a creator. I don't believe there is an organized religion out there that has it right where God is concerned. I always found organized religions to be too restrictive and circular in thinking. Whenever anyone says they know what God wants, I cringe. I believe God is far too complex for us to "know" anything about.

Agnostic wasn't really a bad fit either since I do believe you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. I do know that not all of the organized religions can be right and it is far too exclusive for only one of them to be right. Say christians have it right. What happens to the devoted Jews, muslims, hindus, etc? Is God only choosing some of the population to enlighten? That doesn't jive with me.

I have noticed in my experience that the most devoutly religious people tend to live the most miserable lives. I credit this to the fact that if they didn't believe there would be something better for them in the next life, they wouldn't be able to go on each day of this one.

People say that everything happens for a reason and only God knows the greater purpose. I don't buy that either. Sometimes terrible things happen to wonderful people and there is no reason.

If you have your own opinions regarding things that I have brought up, please share them. However, PLEASE do not come on here and quote scripture or preach to me the error of my ways. I respect the fact that other people have different beliefs than my own and am interested in how they feel about it but I am done with being told why I am wrong in mine and where in the bible it says I'm wrong. You can't convince me the bible is God's word by quoting the bible. That is the circular reasoning that turns me off from organized religion.

So please come here, tell me what you believe, don't believe, or what religion you have faith in but don't preach. I am so done with that that I will remove scripture quotes and ban you.

Comments (Page 5)

JillUser

on Jan 22, 2006

How much is actually historically factual and how much has been invented by the new Essenes is anyone's guess, but is some interesting reading anyway.

I've done a bit of reading online and it is interesting. I like the thought that taking care of others is part of taking care of God. Red flags for me of the extremes involved with the Essenes were 1) they believed anyone who ate meat was unable of controling there "animalistic" instincts and 2) they claimed they could heal some illnesses just by chanting. I think a lot of sci-fi races are based after the Essenes though

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jan 22, 2006

The modern Essenes, a resurrection of the old order, believe that the scriptures as they exist in the modern Christian bible were actually altered by Rome to better fit the desires and ideas of Rome. The Essenes are vegetarians and abstain from alcohol.

Well not sure why they would believe that. If they did, the Dead Sea Scroll Discovery should put that to rest. The manuscripts found were 1000 years older than what we had in our hands at the time in 1948. These scrolls were dated up to 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. So Rome had no access to these scrolls most likely hidden by the Jews before the destruction happened.

That is one of my problems with people who take the bible too literally. For one thing, it was written how many years after Jesus died

The New Testament was written between AD 50 and AD 90's by eyewitnesses. The first books especially were written when many of eyewitnesses were still alive. So the opportunity to refute would have been great. They never were.

Compare that to Buddha's writings and the writings of Mohammud. I believe if I remember right that Buddha's sayings were written about 500 years after he died. For some reason....the credibility of scripture is suspect but not that of other writings...just curious why do you suppose?

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jan 22, 2006

It was translated from language to language to language. Who knows how much got changed in translation alone

We still have the original manuscripts...I think about 500 still around, more than any other work of antiquity. The next one with not nearly as many original copies is Homer's Iliad. Yet no one ever questions that work. All we have to do (and I do this on occasion) is go back to the Hebrew and Greek to get the real meaning. Check this link out.....Link

I was in an argument with a Catholic on a meaning of the word "body" By using that site I could show her in the Latin and Greek that it was a "Dead Body". Corpse was very understandable in the Latin. That's why going back to the original language is very helpful and also shows us that the bible we have in our hands today is reliable. The Dead Sea Scolls also affirm this and is called the biggest discovery of our time.

JillUser

on Jan 22, 2006

go back to the Hebrew and Greek to get the real meaning

The old testament was Aramaic and Hebrew. The New testament was Greek. And you are throwing Latin in there too. Can you see what I mean about translation? You say going back to the "original language" to show what we have today is reliable. How much Aramaic do you know?

The New Testament was written between AD 50 and AD 90's by eyewitnesses.

Exactly! I have heard stories get changed in a matter of minutes. A lot can be altered or embelished in 50 or 90 years. I myself have seen groups of people confer that something they just saw was actually something completely different. Men are fallible. That is why when you say Jesus said he was ____ what you are really saying is according to someone else, Jesus said _____.

Thanks for helping me with my point KFC.

cactoblasta

on Jan 22, 2006

We still have the original manuscripts...I think about 500 still around, more than any other work of antiquity.

Really? Where? I thought the oldest surviving copies were created in the Dark Ages. And how could there be 500 copies of the original manscripts?

KarmaGirl

on Jan 23, 2006

Compare that to Buddha's writings and the writings of Mohammud. I believe if I remember right that Buddha's sayings were written about 500 years after he died.

No, the writings from the Buddha that we know (Siddhartha Gautama) were written by disciples of his. They wrote Sutras, and there are many. Buddhism does not have a "holy" book like the bible, instead, it has teachings on basic concepts. Buddhism has 5 precepts:

1. No killing (Respect for life)
2. No stealing (Respect for others' property)
3. No sexual misconduct (Respect for our pure nature)
4. No lying (Respect for honesty)
5. No intoxicants (Respect for a clear mind)

It also does not tell you to pray to a deity, or that another person is on the wrong road to enlightenment. You can not compare the bible to the teachings of Buddha, because their goals are not the same.

If you want to compare them, however, you won't like the outcome.

Leauki

on Jan 23, 2006

How much Aramaic do you know?

Some.

You can not compare the bible to the teachings of Buddha, because their goals are not the same.

Do you mean the Bible in the Jewish sense (i.e. a bunch of laws that apply ONLY to Jews) or in the Christian sense (i.e. a truth that applies to everybody)?

I find Buddhism and Judaism very compatible.

Except that Judaism allows intoxicants.

JillUser

on Jan 23, 2006

find Buddhism and Judaism very compatible.

Buddhism is compatible with most religions. Buddhism is a philosophy. Like Karma said, it is about basic concepts. The bible on the other hand is supposed to be actual quotations from Jesus and the word of God handed down through men.

Moderateman

on Jan 23, 2006

my front license plate holder says it all for ME "i AIN'T RELIGIOUS! i JUST LOVE THE LORD"

AndyBaker

on Jan 23, 2006

I find Buddhism and Judaism very compatible.

Buddhism is compatible with most religions.

I agree. I think that the smaller our scope, the less we will be able to notice the common ground between Buddhism and Christianity, or Judaism or whatever. The more we 'zoom out', and broaden our scope, however, the more we can see commonality and harmony between the two views. (They're actually describing the same thing, only from two quite different angles.) To me, Buddhism describes the 'Ground', or backdrop, by teaching that the ultimate dimension of reality (“the Ground of Being”) is Spirit. Because Buddhism centres around humility, compassion, and mindfulness, I think that people of other religions can bring some Buddhist philosophy and practices into their own cultural perspective, in order to be enriched and more enlightened. Buddhist practice is agnostic in principle, which makes it quite flexible.

dharmagrl

on Jan 23, 2006

I believe if I remember right that Buddha's sayings were written about 500 years after he died. For some reason....the credibility of scripture is suspect but not that of other writings...just curious why do you suppose?

The Buddha didn't claim to be able to drive out demons, turn wine into water, raise the dead, hel the sick, and more importantly, he didn't come back to life after being dead for three days.

THAT'S why I suppose. Because so many to the biblical claims are incredibly far fetched. The Buddha didn't ask us to believe anything that we couldn't see or experience for our own selves to be true.

dharmagrl

on Jan 23, 2006

That's why going back to the original language is very helpful and also shows us that the bible we have in our hands today is reliable

You think that Greek and Latin were the original languages of the bible? If so, you are slightly misinformed. The originals were Aramaic and greek, NOT latin.

THAT is why I CAN'T believe what the bible says, especially the King James version.

Ziggystyles

on Jan 23, 2006

I've tended to look at religion much the same as I look at a Star Trek convention. You have a bunch of people who are really into their story.

....didn't you just attend a convention?

KarmaGirl

on Jan 23, 2006

Buddhist practice is agnostic in principle, which makes it quite flexible.

It depends on the form of Buddhism that is practiced. Some use it for meditating to certain deities, but the root of Buddhism has no religion tied to it at all. Buddhism is completely about the here and now. It's the principles of leading an enlightened life. It does not involve a deity, nor a way of life that leads to a reward after death.

Buddha was a man who lived an enlightened life and shared his enlightenment with others who then wrote down his fundamental teachings. He asked people to believe in what they can find in themselves and not to believe in something just because it was told to them or written down (which is why he never wrote anything himself). He never claimed to be affiliated with any deity. All he did was try and get people to live an enlightened life.

You can be a Christian Buddhist, since the concepts of Buddhism do not conflict with Christianity.

Dr Guy

on Jan 23, 2006

THAT'S why I suppose. Because so many to the biblical claims are incredibly far fetched. The Buddha didn't ask us to believe anything that we couldn't see or experience for our own selves to be true.

What I find interesting is that most of the Biblical claims could be reporduced today with our technology and Science. I think it was Einstein who said the only difference between magic and technology is the level of understanding of the observer.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!