Sure I am not proposing that Jesus is the secret author of the Constitution, but I did want to slow down the claims that there is some huge difference between Christian values and American values.
Understood. A discussion like this can ping-pong. It's not hard to find details that overlap or details that diverge, then argue from there. One person cites a detail where the two systems of thought are similar, another cites a detail where they are not. The glass is half empty, the glass is half full--and around you go.
On the grandest scale I would just note some key differences exist in orientation. Christ's teachings are based on the idea of self-sacrifice. The social contract is based on the idea of enlightened self-interest. For Christ, law comes down from above. In a democracy, law results from discussions among citizens. For Christ, the God of Judaism is everybody's God. In a democracy, religious freedom is for everybody. Matters about religion (even whether to have one) are private.
Deism is one specific form of theism, not theism itself. I honestly cannot understand how you could insist that it is.
Would RAZD agree with this?
Seeing as I have previously stated just what dwise1 said, Yes I would agree with him.
I am insisting about is that both words literally mean the same thing.
The may come from similar roots, but the connotations they have acquired since then give them distinct different meanings.
Definitions are not static, they evolve, like all things in human society.
Including religions - hence the differences between judaism, christianity, islam, protestant, baptist, mormon, etcetera beliefs, all derived from the same base, and why they are all part of the judeo-christian-islam "clad" but different from hindu, buddhist, jain, deist etcetera beliefs.
The issue though was whether people should allow their religious beliefs to control their political behavior, or would they sacrifice the american declaration and constitution for their religion.
Given that some people will vote for or against a politician based on what religion the politician belongs to above all other values, ideas and positions that person has, I think the answer is yes.
Personally, I think these people are traitors to the american values in the process. The constitution specifically says there is to be no test for religion for a person to be an elected official:
(color mine for empHASis)
What this means is that christian values (or any other religious values) should NOT be a basis for choosing our elected leaders, rather we should be concerned with their ideas, their programs, their policies and the rationale they give for them, and what they do.
If those ideas, programs, policies and rationales and behavior happen to align with your personal religious beliefs, then fine, but don't make the religious beliefs the paramount reason for selection.
If you are not saying that the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong you cannot say that the Jewish God is not the Christian God. Christians say He is, Jews arguably say He isn't (although even a Jew might say that Christians worship the same God but are mistaken about His nature).
Seeing as I have previously stated just what dwise1 said, Yes I would agree with him.
Perhaps I am being dense. Once again, I specifically said 'deist' to avoid the endless examples of how our nation is not theist. It is humourous to see that this caused more argument than it eliminated. But...since we are all clear that deism and theism literally are the same word, but that different usages have become assosciated with them, I fail to see how deism is a type of theism. If that is the case, then why would it even matter if I used one word or the other?
If that is the case, then why would it even matter if I used one word or the other?
Judeo-christian-islamic-mormonist WASP that you are. Do you need more examples?
Because the definition of words is about the communication of meaning. Your usage does NOT match the definition that the REST of the world uses, therefore YOUR usage is MISLEADING: WRONG.
I specifically said 'deist' to avoid the endless examples of how our nation is not theist.
And this totally contradicts your claim that the two words mean the same thing. Now you are equivocating.
Perhaps I am being dense.
Exceptionally. You don't get to chose new definitions for words in common usage.
Look up the words in your dictionary and try substituting the definitions given in your sentence as see which one means what you are trying to say: that is the way you test word usage.
All {A} is {B} does not mean that all {B} is {A} because {A} is a smaller group totally enclosed within {B}.
Like catholic within christian and christian within judeo-christian-islam-etc.
This is the logical fallacy that you keep tripping over - that all {B} is {A}.
Catholics are not deists last time I checked, nor are other branches of christianity or the wider umbrella of judeo-christian-islam-etc. religions.
You yourself noted you did not like what certain Deists had to say about the Catholic religion, thus you do reali
But catholics and deists are theists. This is consistent with the definitions of the words.
Deists and theists both believe in god/s.
So do hindus and catholics, so that makes them identical too?
and catholics and mormons?
and catholics and protestants? -- the ones that couldn't help killing themselves in ireland over the identical quality of their god ("no my god is more like your god than yours is like mine" - is that what it was about)?
You argument has the logic of a subamarine with screen doors.
To say a deist is a type of theist is denying the differences in usage of the words.
To say a deist is a type of theist is the proper usage of both words, no matter how much you keep denying the matter. That is how the dictionaries define the words and how they are used by the rest of the population - or at least the ones interested in properly communication of the ideas they want to express.
Look them up in wikipedia if the dictionary definitions are not concrete enough for you:
SO both came into general usage in English at about the same time, but NOT with the same meaning.
Dear RAZD, Please don't feel that I am so thick headed about this. I understand the entire concept and the many different classifications of theist and deist that exist.
I will even go so far as to say that it might have made more sense to say 'theist' in the initial sentence which started this. I chose to take that chance in hope of preventing an argument, not creating one.
And yes, I admit to difficulty in saying deism is a form of theism. Believe me, it is not based on any prejudice.
It is only because deists are listed as ONE movement within theism, when in reality there are many subsets of both. If you use the term 'theism' very loosely as 'a believer in god/s', a deist fits in there. So, I feel it is the same thing if we reverse the order and say a particular subset of theism is part of a very loose def. of 'deism', literally, 'belief in god/s'. Christianity is therefore a form of 'deism'.
I know that deism has become the name of another theistic subset, but while the general def. of theism is that God uses revelations, and the subset 'deism' says God does not use revelations, then it is not correct to say that deism is theism. Get it? If not, just know, that I do understand where you are coming from.
So, I feel it is the same thing if we reverse the order and say a particular subset of theism is part of a very loose def. of 'deism', literally, 'belief in god/s'. Christianity is therefore a form of 'deism'.
This is so only when you exclude part of the definition of deist. That is not "loose" that is incomplete.
Deism specifically excludes all revelations - input from god directly to man, christianity relies on specific revelations - the bible, and that makes the two incompatable at a fundamental level.
I saw this thread and had to laugh.. I believe there should be a "War on Christmas" and "Easter" and all of the Roman Catholic Holy-Days (Holidays) They are all amalgamations of Christianity and Pagan traditions. Plus they all violate the Regulative Principle.
My family and I do not celebrate Christmas (The Christ Mass) nor do we celebrate Easter, St. Valentine's, St. Patrick's, Mardi Gras, or All Hallow's Eve (yes Halloween is a Roman Catholic holiday)
I just think it is funny (and sad) when I see Christians argue about keeping something "Cristian" that isn't even Christian to begin with.
Don't look now, but the afterlife of two realms (heaven, hell) are not particularly christian either. In fact, the word hell comes from the old norse hel, which was one of three places for the dead (valhalla and freyja's hall being the other two we know of). The whole idea of separate places for the dead based on their deeds in this life is far older than christianity.
I also recommend starting a war against monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, and sunday as all those names are derived from pagan gods or concepts. Mon=moon, Tues=tyr, Wednes=Woden/Odin, Thur=thor, Fri=freyja/frigg, Satur=saturn*, Sun=well, the sun.
When you use those names, are you honoring pagan god(ess)s? You're at least recognizing them, which might not please your god.
*In scandinavia it's lordag, which equates with bath-day, since that's when the vikings would bath (or so goes the thought). So we have one day that's not actually related to viking mythology.
I am very well aware of the pagan origin of the days of the week as well. We call Sunday "Lord's Day" and associate the rest by the numeral date. But the topic was Holy-Days, Christ-Mass in particular.
Edited by Separatist Puritan, : No reason given.
-Separatist Puritan-
"If ever there should come a wretched day when all our pulpits be full of modern thought, and the old doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice shall be exploded, then there will remain no word of comfort for the guilty or hope for the despairing." - C. H. SPURGEON
™ Version 4.2
