I have described and discussed deism on thekingpin68 blog previously.
M.H. Macdonald writes that deism describes an unorthodox religious view expressed among readers in the first half of the seventeenth century, most notably Lord Herbert of Cherbury. Macdonald (1996: 304). Deism is from the Latin for deus in contrast to theos from the Greek. Macdonald (1999: 304). Deism is different than theism and is connected to natural religion that thinks religious knowledge is gained through reason and not revelation or church doctrines. Macdonald (1996: 304). There is a belief in a supreme being, but this being is not directly involved in the affairs of his creation. Macdonald (1996: 304). In agreement with Christianity, would be an understanding of God as first cause and the creator of universal laws. Macdonald (1996: 305). David Pailin defines deism as coming from the Latin word deus and parallels the Greek which is theos. Pailin (1999: 148).
In modern times deism is used to define a supreme being who is the ultimate source of reality, but does not intervene in the natural and historical processes through revelation or salvific acts. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin writes that the common use of the term ‘theism’ does not carry the same negative implications. Pailin (1999: 148). He explains that historically deism is not so much a set of doctrines, but a movement, largely British, that became popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pailin (1999: 148). Many within deism will have doubts concerning concepts of supernatural religious doctrines, revelation and the authority of the Bible. Pailin (1999: 148). Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity. Pailin (1999: 149).
William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). He writes that some self-styled Christian deists accept revelation although they argue that the content is the same as natural religion. Wainwright (1996: 188). Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188). Salvation therefore does not come via divine revelation. Wainwright (1996: 188).
My recent thoughts on deism relate to the following comment cited in my own words from Wainwright.
Most deists reject revelation as fiction, but many reason that God has ordained that human happiness is possible through natural means that are universally available. Wainwright (1996: 188).
Even if Christian revelation via the New Testament and Hebrew Bible is abandoned by a critic, it can still be reasoned that God existed prior to finite time and matter. God is infinite. Reasonably, all of God's attributes are infinite, and therefore God has unlimited life as eternal, unlimited power as omnipotent, unlimited knowledge as omniscient and unlimited goodness and is perfectly holy.
Now, I reason this rules out the notion of God being evil at all, even if one abandons the Bible. If God was both infinitely good and infinitely evil, this would make God a contradictory being, as evil would be contrary and opposite of good. I therefore conclude that whatever, if any, evil occurs is used by God for the greater good. This could be concluded philosophically, even without the use of Scripture.
Even abandoning the Biblical concept of sin, it seems as clear as day philosophically that all persons are morally corrupt and imperfect. Also, all persons eventually die and suffer prior to death. Under a deistic model where God does not reveal himself directly and provides no means of salvation, it seems reasonable and likely that human happiness at best is limited and would cease.
Why under a deistic system should one expect everlasting life from a God that has not revealed himself, and as the first cause has willingly allowed his creations to suffer and die?
His creations would not be worthy of being in his direct presence everlastingly, as even without a concept of sin, philosophically, human beings are corrupt and evil and God is not. Under deism there seems to be no way to close the gap between imperfect humanity and perfect God, and no very good evidence that God is interested in this concept.
If I was a deist, with what I know presently, I certainly would continue to seek God and ask for his best forever, but as I, like all persons are under the curse of suffering and death, I would see no solid philosophical reason within philosophical deism itself to expect anything other than eventual death, and would not have anything other than unsubstantiated hopes for a seemingly disinterested God to extend my life post-mortem.
In all this there is no very good answer to what many perceive as the problem of evil. Why under deism does the perfectly good and holy God create human beings and then abandon all of them in ultimate death?
Perhaps as with plant death for the sake of food and the environment, human suffering and death would and should be considered a good thing within a deistic concept. God would therefore not have a desire to provide any person with everlasting life.
However, within a Christian worldview the problem of evil is viewed as something willed and allowed by the infinite God for the greater good, with the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers within a culminated Kingdom of God as the ultimate remedy for humanity.
I seriously doubt a long lasting, everlasting happiness is available by natural means, and/or from God with a deistic approach.
MACDONALD, M.H. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Deism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
WAINWRIGHT, WILLIAM J. (1996) ‘Deism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
I am still here...Mr. Thekingpin68!
Hmm, crush the kingpin, what an idea.
Dumb quotes/some posted on this blog previously
1. Question: If you could live forever, would you and why?
Answer: "I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever."
- Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss USA contest
2. "Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that but not with all those flies and death stuff."
- Mariah Carey
3. "Researchers have discovered that chocolate produces some of the same reactions in the brain as marijuana. The researchers also discovered other similarities between the two, but can't remember what they are."
- Matt Lauer on NBC's Today Show, August 22
4. "I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law."
- David Dinkins, New York City Mayor, (answering accusations that he failed to pay his taxes)
5. "Smoking kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life."
- Brooke Shields, during an interview to become spokesperson for a federal anti-smoking campaign.
6. "I've never had major knee surgery on any other part of my body."
- Winston Bennett, Univ. of KY basketball forward
7. "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC
8. "We're going to turn this team around 360 degrees."
- Jason Kidd, upon his drafting to the Dallas Mavericks
9. "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We? are the president."
- Hillary Clinton (commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents)
10. "China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese."
- Former French President Charles De Gaulle
11. "That lowdown scoundrel deserves to be kicked to death by a jackass, and I'm just the one to do it."
- A Congressional Candidate in Texas
12. "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
- Former U.S. Vice-president Dan Quayle
13. "Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind."
- General William Westmoreland
14. And last but not least, a parting word from Dan Quayle: "I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix."
Merry Christmas
Okay, I will add this as well and it relates to the previous photo.
Thanks, Mom.
Deism Article:
ReplyDeleteDeism is very similar to Theism but is lacking and a very unfullfilling World View. God must have personality and be personal because we are. Therefore God more than likely would desire to be known. Perhaps this is when Revelation occurs...
-Theist Beist-
Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI can agree that a personal God could reasonably be expected to have the ability to create personal beings, as in beings that are rational, have families and have culture.
I can also reason that God would quite likely desire to reveal himself. But without Scripture, this would be theological speculation primarily.
That "Crush the Kingpin" cover is an ingenious response to the other cover! Well done!
ReplyDeleteThose quotes by celebrities, on the other hand, are not so ingenious...Wow...
Here's an interesting correlation to the 'Satire and Theology vs. TheKingPin68' twins:
I just got through watching (again) "The Last Stand," the third and last X-Men movie. I was thinking, "Isn't the guy who plays Iceman the same guy that plays Jimmy Olsen in Smallville? If not, he must be his twin brother!" My second thought was correct. Iceman (Bobby Drake) is portrayed by Shawn Ashmore. His twin brother Aaron Ashmore plays Jimmy Olsen in "Smallville." In addition, Shawn previously appeared twice in "Smallville" (as Clark Kent's nemesis, Eric Summers). And Aaron had a recurring role in "Veronica Mars," whose star Kristen Bell plays in "Heroes" (which is a show about characters similar to the X-Men). And, as Aaron and Shawn look very similar, so your photo and TheKingpin68's photos look alike.
So, Mr. Satire and Theology, TheKingpin68 has Spider-Man's arch-enemy "The Kingpin" to represent him, but who do you have? Nobody! So let me ask a silly question: In applying my correlation of twins Shawn Ashmore and Aaron Ashmore, which one would you say symbolizes you more?: Iceman (aka Bobby Drake) of the X-Men, or Superman's close friend, reporter Jimmy Olsen? Or, if neither, which comic book character (hero or villain) might you choose to represent yourself against your lookalike blog nemesis, TheKingpin68? I mean, we can't have him represented by a famous super-villain, and you represented by nobody!
Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Sorry, Mr. Jeff Jackson.
ReplyDeleteOkay, if thekingpin68 equals the Kingpin from Marvel, I reason Satire and Theology can be represented by the Joker from DC, and/or the Green Goblin from Marvel.
Russ;)
Russ, I totally agree. Deism just doesn't make sense. Neither does (IMHO) cessationism (the belief that God has stopped performing miracles). One who believed in either would have no reason to pray, nor any hope in a little something called "salvation." :)
ReplyDeleteNow regarding a character to go up against the Kingpin, the 90's version of Lex Luthor would be perfect. Very similar sort of character, who would definitely try to crush the Kingpin, if ever he tried to set foot in Metropolis. I've long lost track of what's been going on in comics, so I don't know what the latest incarnation of Luthor is up to. My personal favorite would have to be the early 80's version, in which he had a kyptonite-equipped battle suit, in which he could go toe-to-toe with the Big S.
Thanks, Greg.
ReplyDeleteI am not a cessationist, but nor I am a charismatic. I remain cautiously open-minded.:)
Lex Luther...hmm, another bald guy. Jeff might be able to do something with that concept.
Russ
"Pailin notes that some within deism desire to replace Christianity with a more ‘reasonable’ faith, and for others it is an attempt to produce a more ‘reasonable’ version of Christianity."
ReplyDeleteOf course, when you remove the true God, an absolute and personal being, and replace him with deism's impersonal one, you wipe out all basis for a rational reality. It's a self-refuting argument and anything but reasonable.
Good post, Russ. Sorry my comments have not appeared more often on your recent posts...I'm very busy right now trying to tie up this semester. Peace, brother!
Cheers, Jake.
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate that Christianity and deism agree on first cause issues, and deism is a superior option to atheism. Even if hypothetically a type of deist did reason God had personality and therefore reasons humanity does, God's personal nature, without revelation, would be of no benefit to humanity in the long run.
Russ:)
I read this
ReplyDelete14. And last but not least, a parting word from Dan Quayle: "I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix."
And the first thing I thought was,
I can see Russia from my house.
Greg,
ReplyDeleteAs far as that battle of the bald guys, the Kingpin is obviously physically much stronger, though Luthor, as you pointed out, has used that battle suit. The Kingpin has battled the likes of Spider-Man, Daredevil and the Punisher, but Luthor has battled Superman. The Kingpin could command a bunch of low-level thugs, and possibly some villains who would likely be enemies of Spiderman, but Luthor has used high-tech weapons, and possibly would be able to command some very powerful super-villains.
I would think that Allah of Islam would be closer to Deism than Yahweh (Jehovah) of Christianity and Judaism would be (traditionally speaking, I mean), although Allah does grant salvation, though it is basically dependent on what mood he's in that day (unless you die as a suicide bomber, in which you are guaranteed 72 virgins). Allah does apparently interfere in human affairs, as Muslims do talk about being blessed by Allah, but Allah is not an interpersonal, loving God as is Yahweh.
ReplyDeleteEven if Christian revelation via the New Testament and Hebrew Bible is abandoned by a critic, it can still be reasoned that God existed prior to finite time and matter. God is infinite. Reasonably, all of God's attributes are infinite, and therefore God has unlimited life as eternal, unlimited power as omnipotent, unlimited knowledge as omniscient and unlimited goodness and is perfectly holy.
On my blog site one time, I was discussing Creation vs. Evolution, and I explained to one person in comments that everything must have a beginning, and that all designs must have a designer. His response was, "So who created God?" I replied that God had no beginning. He said that was no answer at all.
Why under a deistic system should one expect everlasting life from a God that has not revealed himself, and as the first cause has willingly allowed his creations to suffer and die?
His creations would not be worthy of being in his direct presence everlastingly, as even without a concept of sin, philosophically, human beings are corrupt and evil and God is not. Under deism there seems to be no way to close the gap between imperfect humanity and perfect God, and no very good evidence that God is interested in this concept.
Well said. Other than providing some explanation for certain things, I do not see Deism as providing much more meaning than Atheism does, ultimately.
In all this there is no very good answer to what many perceive as the problem of evil. Why under deism does the perfectly good and holy God create human beings and then abandon all of them in ultimate death?
Good point, especially since I suspect that some are deists possibly because they reject the idea of a loving God based on the problem of evil.
Thanks, Rick.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans are in tough I think. Even conservative Christian Baptist Republican supporters such as Mohler and Moore think America has likely shifted to the centre-left.
The Republicans may move to the centre-left to be elected in the White House, therefore alienating many Christian voters.
Cheers, Jeff.
ReplyDeletePlus Kingpin and Luther both have shiny domes.
Since God is infinite and existed prior to creation, time and matter, he does not need a creator.
Only one infinite being can exist and God therefore could not logically have an infinite creator.
He simply is and always was. He has always existed in a timeless state and has sovereign providential control over his creation.
Jeff, Chucky and Bobby:
ReplyDeleteAmazing Spider-Man #60
Amazing Spider-Man #60
ReplyDeleteLooks like the Kingpin is using Spidey as a baseball bat.
A basic summary introduction to conditions that gave rise to Deism:
"If the seventeenth century was an age of orthodoxy, the eighteenth was an age of rationalism. In part, rationalism wa a reaction to or an outgrowth of cold orthodoxy. And in part it grew out of the great emphasis on faith and emotion during the seventeenth century. Many of the groups that stressed spiritual experience did not strive hard enough to meet the intellectual needs of their constituency. In their emphasis on emotion, they neglected a doctrinal basis of their faith. Note for instance that Immanuel Kant, a watershed in the history of philosophy, was the son of Pietistic parents and that he was educated a a Pietist until 1740.
The rise of rationalism also resulted from the place given to philosophy in the universities. During the Middle Ages philosophy and theology had been wed in the system called Scholasticism; but with the decline of Scholasticism and the church the two were divorced, with the result that philosophy became an enemy of theology. Western philosophy was now free to discover answers to the big questions of life by means of human reason alone. In such a frame of reference there were no absolutes, and thought processes clashed head on with theological systems in which the answers to the big questions of life came by revelation and in which there were numerous divinely-prescribed absolutes."
(p. 114, "Exploring Church History," by Howard F. Vos)
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThat is helpful.
What do you think of the Christmas tree?
Bible Walks: Very colourful
More on a summarized introduction to Deism (which, of course, agrees with your research, Russ, but also presents a sort of "Dummies Guide" on a basic level for those unfamiliar with it):
ReplyDelete"Furthermore,the rise of rationalism was fostered by scientific developments. Copernicus (1473-1543) was responsible for developing the view that the sun instead of the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo (1564-1642) trained the telescope on the heavens and used observation to support Copernicus' view of the solar system. Descartes (1596-1650) propounded the concept of a mathematically ordered universe governed by natural law, and Isaac Newton (1642-1727) furnished the principle that the law of gravity held the universe together and caused it to function as it did.
In another connection, Descartes taught that one ought never to allow himself to be persuaded of the truth of anything unless on the evidence of reason. And Francis Bacon (1561-1626) introduced the inductive method, according to which a scientist accepted nothing on the basis of authority alone, but developed his theories by observing phenomena. So knowledge was tied to what the senses could discover and what the reason could deduce. Revelation tended to take a back seat to reason and to knowledge gained by sense perception.
The new scientific developments led to the view that the universe was a closed system of cause and effect, ruled by universal and dependable laws. God was considered to be a necessary first cause to start the system going; but once He set the universe in motion, He no longer interfered with its natural processes. Miracle, providence, prayer, and revelation were ruled out. The natural religion of deism took over. God was still viewed as Creator, but He had little to do with the universe, which He as a kind of watchmaker had wound up and let run according to natural laws.
Since He did not interfere in this universe, there was no such thing as revelation. Thus the Bible was a human book with some elevated ethical principles and spiritual lessons that had value for humanity. The greatest revelation of all, God's self-revelation in His Son, and the greatest miracle of all, the incarnation of the Son, were rejected out of hand. Thus, Jesus was only a human with an amazing God-consciousness and a superior ethic to be emulated. Deism made great inroads in England, France, Germany, and other countries of Europe, as well as in America."
(p. 114-115, "Exploring Church History," by Howard F. Vos)
Yes, recently I saw Plantinga on a PBS documentary being interviewed by a critic of theism, state that the universe was an open system.
ReplyDeleteHello Russ,
ReplyDeleteThe Christmas tree is beautiful.
I truly believe that God enjoys revealing Himself to us. It is at this point that His Word becomes life in our spirits. So now when you open up His word and begin reading and studying it, it unfolds with life and meaning and changes the heart of man.
What do you think of the Christmas tree?
ReplyDeleteYou mean in general? Well, I realize that it has some pagan roots that have been Christianized, but I think what is far, far worse is the fact that Christmas has become completely commercialized, and also the fact that the birth of Jesus has been replaced by the story of Santa Claus. Many kids have no idea it is a celebration of Christ's birth. To them, it is a [selfish] time when they will be showered with gifts, and it is all about them.
However, just as many Christians see Halloween as a horrible thing, while I see Halloween as an incredible opportunity to evangelize, so I also recognize that during Christmas, people hear carols and hymns, or see a Christian message on a Christmas card, or go to church that one day during the year, when they might not be exposed to those things any other time of year. So, though Christmas has become X-Mas, and Santa (and/or the idea of family or happy feelings) has replaced Jesus, and commercialism has turned it into something I dread, still, it presents a unique opportunity for people to hear (and possibly be more open to) the gospel, more than any other holiday (even Easter, IMO, since people generally don't get into Easter as much as they do Christmas).
So, even though Christmas has become corrupted, it still presents unique opportunities for people to hear the gospel.
Doh! You mean the photo of the Christmas tree that you have! Sheesh...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tamela; it is beautiful. Is that your tree?
Tamela said:
I truly believe that God enjoys revealing Himself to us. It is at this point that His Word becomes life in our spirits. So now when you open up His word and begin reading and studying it, it unfolds with life and meaning and changes the heart of man.
Excellently stated, Tamela.
Thanks, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteThe tree is made from Mountain Dew cans and a bottle, and it looks like a pole and metal hangers.
I agree that God has revealed himself.
Russ:)
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThose are good insights on Christmas and Halloween.
Russ:)
I can't keep up with your added photos, Russ. I guess during the time when I was typing all that stuff, you added those new photos. After I saw Tamela's comment, I checked back on your main page and saw the first Christmas tree photo. Now I see that you added the Mountain Dew one as well. Yeah, that is definitely unique. My youngest brother (who used to be a Redneck) might call that a Redneck Christmas tree. Well, actually a Redneck Christmas tree would probably have to have beer cans instead of Mountain Dew cans. And it would have to be inside a trailer, with a car on blocks sitting in the front yard.
ReplyDeleteI talk about Rednecks because my brother loves Redneck stuff (Redneck photos on the Internet, I mean), even though he's not one anymore. Since he became a Christian, he no longer hates blacks, no longer gets in fights every day, which he used to do at school, and also bar fights; no longer tells black people that he is a member of the KKK; and no longer drives by houses smashing mailboxes with a baseball bat; and no longer steals things like Stop signs to bring them home as souvenirs; and no longer drives through black neighborhoods yelling racial obscenities, etc. He also no longer does drugs like he used to. Also, he married a Cuban girl, which is unheard of for a Redneck. When he became a Christian, he threw away his 6 or 8 huge drawers full of porno magazines, as well. He also got rid of the Budweiser overhead light that he had above his pool table.
ReplyDeleteNow all he does is have a 'Yoville' apartment on Facebook filled with Redneck stuff: a car on blocks in his living room, cases of beer all over the house, piles of trash in one corner of every room, gun racks on every wall, etc. All only in fun, and all only virtual, not real.
Sorry, Jeff. No worries, yes I added the tree photo today. I only added the second photo because I thought that people would see that it was not a typical tree from the first photo but was apparently wrong.
ReplyDeleteBy the time I received your comment the tree was there and so it is just one of those silly things. LOL.
I added the second photo for clarification.
Thanks, Jeff.
Russ;)
BTW, may the Lord lead and guide you regarding your PhD defense in Wales on Jan. 13, and may His will be done.
ReplyDeleteI missed work today, since I've had a stomach virus since yesterday afternoon. I was up all night. My stomach still hurts a bit, but hopefully I'll be over it by tomorrow, and will be able to go back to work.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThe two trees are the same.
Russ:)
Jeff, thanks for the PhD wishes!
ReplyDeleteYeah, when you said "I added the second photo for clarification" in your previous comment, I realized the two trees were the same.
ReplyDeleteEven though you had written "and it relates to the previous photo" underneath the photo, I did not realize you meant it was the same tree.
Already being confused by having new photos added while I'm making comments, plus being sick, will be my two excuses.
Please get well.
ReplyDeleteI have deleted my share of comments...
Russ, You might have a Ph.d
ReplyDeleteBut I have my BLT, LOL. I hate mountain dew. What a lot of work on the tree. how many hours did it take?
This friday, Punisher war zone comes out, I am so going. Rick b
Thanks much, Rick.
ReplyDeleteLOL, I never intended for these photos to be of controversy.
I would rather add things to a post than have to do more posts per month than I wish.
Mom sent me the photos in an email. I agree with her that the tree probably looks cool from a distance, but not so good close up.
Rick, please feel free to punish your BLT!
Russ:)
OK everyone,
ReplyDeleteThe Punisher came out today, Me the wife and 3 good friends are going to see it sunday after church.
One review said, You will feel punished after seeing it. One paper gave it 1/2 a star out of 4 stars.
One paper gave it 2 1/2 stars out of 4. The review said about 250 people die and the movie is gory and grafic.
They had a great photo in the paper I cut out, It shows the punisher holding a guys hand sorta like if you took both or your hands and clasped them togther, and the guy is on his knees in front of the punisher in a dirty alley.
The caption below the photo says,
nothing says Christmas like having all you fingers broken by a guy called "the punisher" in a filthy alley next to a dumpster. I cant wait. rick b
Merry Christmas and Happiness from Rick (Choke you out) B., and the Punisher.
ReplyDeleteI will see "The Punisher," but may wait till it comes out on DVD.
ReplyDelete"The Spirit" also looks very good, and the effects remind me of "Sin City."
According to Wikipedia:
"Voltaire, though often thought an atheist, did in fact partake in religious activities and even erected a chapel on his estate at Ferney. The chief source for the misconception is a line from one of his poems (called "Epistle to the author of the book, The Three Impostors") that translates to: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." The full body of the work, however, reveals his criticism was more focused towards the actions of organized religion, rather than with the concept of religion itself.
Like many other key figures during the European Enlightenment, Voltaire considered himself a Deist. He did not believe that absolute faith, based upon any particular or singular religious text or tradition of revelation, was needed to believe in God. In fact, Voltaire's focus was instead on the idea of a universe based on reason and a respect for nature reflected the contemporary Pantheism, increasingly popular throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and which continues in a form of deism today known as "Voltairean Pantheism.
He wrote, "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."
In terms of religious texts, Voltaire was largely of the opinion that the Bible was 1) an outdated legal and/or moral reference, 2) by and large a metaphor, but one that still taught some good lessons, and 3) a work of Man, not a divine gift. These beliefs did not hinder his religious practice, however, though it did gain him somewhat of a bad reputation in the Catholic Church. It may be noted that Voltaire was indeed seen as somewhat of a nuisance to many believers, and was almost universally known; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart wrote to his father the year of Voltaire's death, saying, "The arch-scoundrel Voltaire has finally kicked the bucket...."
He wrote, "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."
ReplyDeleteI largely agree. There is more to evidence than the empirical.
Well done, Jeff.
William J. Wainwright explains that deism understands true religion as natural, as opposed to supernatural religion.
ReplyDeleteI can not agree with Wainwright due to the fact that Christianity itself is a religion of relationship. And, in this relationship, I have asked and received. I have also received without asking.
Even athiest have opportunity to be happy. It is in the human condition to search for happiness. The problem with athiest, is they don't know they are fulfilling a vacuum with temporal substance.
Those are reasonable conclusions, Jim.
ReplyDeleteRuss
The punisher is on my to buy list,
ReplyDeletethat movie rocked. I am going again. Rick b
Hey, Rick,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you liked it.
Russ
The movie is not for the faint of heart or squemesh.
ReplyDelete