War on Christmas

Last I checked both deists and theists believe in God. A theist believes God interacts, a deist doesn't, but technically they are the same word. An atheist believes in no God. Perhaps you would like me to make a distinction as to how deists don't let God interfere in their government, so maybe the atheist won't mind deists. But deists including the founding fathers have been known to mention God publically. Still curious how the 'American values' are any different from Christian values. Please tell me what some of these other 'christian' values may be. I care about many things. Creating a stink about the 'injustice' of those who stole Yule is just not IMO as important as say the injustice of stealing land from the Native Americans. Things change, they can't all be rectified. A beneficiary of what? Being allowed to celebrate Christmas on a day which does not coincide with any other holiday? Haven't different religions always celebrated some simultaneous holidays anyway? Or does that just not count because they were all pagan?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

No they are NOT. From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

quote:

---

de·ism
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

---

quote:

---

the·ism
n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

---

Theist is the more general term, Deist is not. A Deist is a Theist but not all Theists are Deists. A Christian is a Theist, but not all Theists are Christians. A Christian (esp those that believe in revelations) is NOT a Deist and a Deist is NOT a Christian.You can't use deist to mean theist. Tell me where you get liberty, freedom and equality as christian values. We can quibble about justice (being stoned to death etc) later. Christian intolerance of any other beliefs. The long history of Christian suppression and destruction of other beliefs and cultures. And their culture, language, traditions, beliefs and celebrations. People force to take their culture, language, traditions, beliefs and celebrations underground, hidden beneath a patina of christian facade to survive. So if we just procrastinate and waste enough time we don't need to worry about changing womens wages to match mens for the same job, is that the solution?Every morning you get up you make a decision on how to live that day.It is never to late to stop going the wrong way.I've said my piece to the point of getting repetitious. Either you understand and accept my view or you don't, but I don't think further discussion will produce much difference.Have a happy (totally secular) new year (based on a totally arbitrary datum).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Technically they are the Greek and Latin equivalants of the same word Agreed. You don't think christians have been subject to going underground with their beliefs? Do you want to match holiday celebrations? Then we agree.

John Adams, and the descendant of the leader of the Puritans John Winthrop (also named John Winthrop) are the two that spring immediately to mind as being descendants of the original Puritans.

Over the past month, I always have told my customers to have a nice holiday. only when they said Merry Christmas to me did I say it back to them.Christmas is more representative of materialistic secularism than it is of religion, IMHO. Working at Wal-Mart, I'm sure you could see the masses converge to fulfill their secular mandate of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I saw the same where I work.There is a spirit of giving, helping out at soup kitchens and feeding the homeless that a lot of folks engage in at this time of year and so I think that the idea of giving is an emphasis regardless of ones religious beliefs.As far as changing the greeting, there is no way that this could be done in a free country. People will continue to say what they have been culturally indoctrinated to say.

The original roots of words are not their current meaning. You are equivocating.Misuse of definitions is miscommunication. Having been oppressed does not justify oppressing in turn.

The point being that Jesus does not justify oppressing at all, and that it is men, not religions, which oppress.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Wrong. Not the same god. Deists and Judeo-Christian-Islamic theists are completely different kinds of critters. When a group takes on a different name in order to differentiate themselves from another group, the wiser choice is to listen to how they are differentiating themselves rather than to simply lump them all into the same group and to claim falsely that they all believe in the same god.BTW, I distinguished "Judeo-Christian-Islamic theists" because that is really what we are talking about here. To simply use the term "theists" and claim that all theists believe in the same god is clearly false. Theists include Hindus, pagans (both ancient and modern), countless tribal societies. Are you claiming that all those countless gods are really YHWH, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god? Is it not painfully clear how ridiculous such a claim is? Even if 65% of the US population believed it in 1991, according to a pollster who had done much work for conservative Christian organizations (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/religion/survey.html).At the very least, the comparison needs to be between deists and Judeo-Christian-Islamic theists because of the very nature of this topic, a perceived conflict between Christians and all the rest of humanity. And because more can be learned in comparing two specific types of theists than can be learned in muddying together the entire pantheon inhabiting theism and claiming falsely that it's all just the one god of one particular facet of theism.Christians believe in the God of the Bible, revealed to them through Divine Revelation, performing miracles, and arrived at through faith.Deists were the product of the Enlightenment. Theirs was the God of Nature, revealed to us through the study of nature and of the natural sciences, a nature in which there are no miracles, and arrived at through rational thought and reason.That these are two different gods is underlined by two famous Deists, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Jefferson's Bible was an editting of the Christian Bible, but in which all the miracles had been removed. In Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, he expounded on the God of Nature while denouncing Christianity as a form of atheism that has rejected the true God of Nature in order to worship a man.Clearly, Deism is not the same as Christian theism. And I am equally curious just which Christian values the founding of the United States is supposed to be based on. I've wondered about that ever since the Religious Right arose in the 1980's making that claim. I've asked it a number of times and have always been met by either silence or invectives followed by silence.Democracy is a pagan Greek idea; where is it taught in the Bible? Republicanism, the idea of a representative government, is a pagan Roman idea; where is it taught in the Bible? In preparation for the Constitutional Convention, James Madison studied Greek and Roman histories, not the Bible, for the model upon which to create the new govenment.Similarly, the idea of inherent human rights comes from humanism, which developed as a result of the rediscovery and study of ancient pagan Greek and Roman writings and art, which triggered the rebirth of Western civilization (AKA "the Renaissance") and also gave birth to the Enlightenment. What does the Bible say about inherent human rights? Anything?And what about the ideas in the Declaration of Independance? Which, BTW, names the Deistic god ("... Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ... "). The humanistic view of government is that it is with the permission of the governed and for the benefit of the governed, which is stated in the Declaration. What is the biblical Christian view of government? All I've ever heard and read is that we are supposed to submit to the rulers placed above us, an idea which developed into the "Divine Right of Kings".Religious liberty also seems problematic for the claim. It can be clearly seen as a humanistic idea, because it is based on one of those inherent human rights, the right of conscience; as expounded by James Madison in his "A Memorial and Remonstrance" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/rel_lib/memorial.html): As far as I can divine the Christian view of religious liberty, they see it as good and necessary in order to allow them to practice their own religion, but their attitude seems to change when it comes to others being left free to practice their own. I would think that true religious liberty, the support and protection of the rights of conscience, would be a problem for biblical Christians in that it would allow and support violation of either Commandment #1 or Commandment #2 (depending on which version of the Ten Commandments you read): "you shall have no other gods before me."And then there's the Preamble: The People, taking it upon themselves to form their own government, for their own benefit. Is that biblical or humanistic? In the 1980's, that is precisely the kind of conduct that the Religious Right would loudly denounce as "secular humanism", that great scapegoat that they had created and promoted as "The Enemy" that had taken over American society. My fundamentalist friends and fundamentalists I observed would also consistently echo their religion's teachings about the evils of the People attempting to do anything on their own, let alone for their own benefit. What does the Bible say in this matter?And as further confirmation, I read Religious Right and Reconstructionist writers denouncing democracy as a "humanistic heresy" and human rights as an invention of Satan. So I guess I'm on the right track by understanding that those ideas that our country is based on are inconsistent with Christian values.Now, what again are the Christian ideas that the United States is supposed to be based on?

Deism and theism are still the same word. There has only been a different usage associated with them since around the 17 century. I may say the concept of deism - a God who takes no interest in the affairs of government- is a convenient one for those interested in creating a government which takes no interest in God, but since the duties of a government is to all of its citizens, it has its purposes. You know the old saying 'no man can serve two masters'?But to clear the whole thing up, I used 'deist' purposefully because it is the appropriate word to describe the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. I think RAZD's point was that deism may not be so offensive to atheists as theism is.I would prefer if you also do not use the term 'Judeo-Christian-Islamic God' because to claim that all of those religions worship the same God is clearly false.And perhaps consider putting Hindus and pagans on the list of polytheists? Democracy and Republicanism are not values. For a good start on Christian values you might consider Jesus' teachings on equality.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Just like dogs and chordates (vertebrates) are one and the same thing.Theism is belief in any variety of the gods. Hinduism is part of theism, but are all forms of theism Hinduism? No more than all chordate forms are dogs.Deism is one specific form of theism, not theism itself. I honestly cannot understand how you could insist that it is. Both Hindus and pagans are firmly on the list of theists. Theism is the general classification of those who believe in one or more of the gods, but in itself "theism" does not specify the number of gods involved. If you want to narrow down the classification by number of gods, then you need to use terms such as polytheism, monotheism, and henotheism. But you can no more claim that "theism" means only "monotheism" than you can claim that "deism" means the general term "theism". Sorry and my sincerest apologies to Sophocles *. I based that on each subsequent group's belief that theirs is the same God as the preceding groups; Islam teaches that Allah was the God of Abraham and that Jesus was a teacher of that same god, while Christianity claims that their God is also the God of Abraham, though it doesn't accept the claims of Islam, and the Judaism doesn't accept the claims of either of the other groups.But in reality, each religion creates its own gods (AKA its own particular ideas of their gods) which are different, hence Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do indeed worship different gods, since they all have their own ideas of what they would claim to be the same god. The same even applies to different branches of Christianity; they teach that they worship the same god, but their ideas about that god are different, hence they are worshipping different gods. Democracy is indeed a value upon which this country was formed. And what of representative self-government, inherent human rights, religious liberty, man as the measure for how well a government is doing, etc. And certainly political equality and equality before the law, which is a humanistic value. There's certainly no reason why a humanistic value could not also be a Christian value, but do the teachings of Jesus really say the same thing about equality? Some support would be needed for your "example", vague as it was.Just what are the founding values that you would claim to be Christian?Footnote:
* Though I may not have gotten that name right, having to remember 35 years back. He wrote something to the effect of: "Man creates the gods in his own image. If the cows in the field had hands with which to draw, then they would draw their gods in their own image."
In short, the gods are a human invention, created and re-created as the need is seen, regardless of whether such an actual supernatural entity or entities actually exist. Basically, our ideas of "God" are our own feeble attempts to describe and discuss the Infinite, attempts which doubtless fall woefully short.Edited by dwise1, : Not sure I got the Greek's name right; it's been 35 years after all.

No, my point is that I am a Deist and that you are misusing the term. The way you were using it you MEANT theist. LOL. The shoe is on the other foot and thou complainest loudly."Judeo-Christian-Islamic" religion is the lump grouping for all jewish, christian, and muslim beliefs, including all the subsects and later beliefs such as 7th day adventists, mormons, davidians, etc.They have all evolved from the same foundation. Which is long enough to firmly establish different meanings for the words in the way they are used. Perhaps that is WHY there is a distinction between them in the dictionaries eh? You are putting the cart before the horse. Deism came first, and yes it was the faith of a lot of founding fathers, but not all of them.And it is not a matter of deism being a concept that god takes no interest in the affairs of government but that {he/she/they/it} do not take any interest in personally interfering in the affairs of man at all, personal or social or government. People are left to use reason instead of blind faith. Free will with no strings.Perhaps it was "convenient" because it allowed people to think for themselves. Without that kind of freedom, would the declaration of independence have been written? The constitution? Judging from the comments of christians at the time, the answer would be no. Which is exactly why those who think government should be run by religious beliefs are traitors to the ideals of this country, and ultimately to the concepts in the declaration of independence and the constitution.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Beg your pardon? They do not all worship the God of Abraham?Of course all three worship the same God.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Its not the basis for the debate but it is the basis for posting a joke in the humor thread. On an anonymous internet forum? Of course you can’t. But we can assume people are being honest and put our trust in that assumption in order to have a progressive discussion. Most of what I post is honest. How could I prove it and remain anonymous? I can admit when I’m wrong. I disagree that there is nothing to take back but I don’t think that December has to have something to do with the christian celebration to begin with in order for there to be something to take back. Why should there NOT be?I wouldn’t be offended by someone wishing me a happy Kwanzaa, nor would I say that their mythos deserves no respect, nor would I say that they shouldn’t be allowed to wish people a Happy Kwanzaa and that they must use Happy Holidays instead.Why should people not be allowed to use their preferred greeting when it does not assume that everyone is that religion, when it should not be taken offensively, and when it is not forcing beliefs on the receiver of the greeting?I can see why people claim that if someone wishes me a Happy Kwanzaa that it assumes that I will actually be celebrating Kwanzaa but with Christmas, there are tons of non-Christian people who celebrate it so there needn’t be a religious assumption in the greeting.A lot of people celebrate Christmas now-a-days, it doesn’t matter that they didn’t do it to begin with. What we have now is a NEW mythos (Happy Holidays) adapted, altered or made up to cover the hi-jacking of Christmas. I would rather that we didn’t remove Christmas from the holiday greetings because that is my preferred holiday, along with the majority in this country, and there is nothing wrong with using it. I think that forcing people to remove it and replace it with Happy Holidays is what is wrong. We should let people use the greeting they prefer and tolerate them, right? In my upbringing we were always told that Dec 25th was when celebrated the birth of Jesus, not that he was actually born on that day.From Message 27. But Dec. does have something to do with Christianity, it has been assigned as the time to celebrate Jesus’ birth. Just because it wasn’t that to begin with doesn’t mean it has nothing to do with it.If people want to remove Christmas for the holiday greeting then they can, but they shouldn’t say that other people should not be allowed use it. Nor should they poison the well by claiming that it assumes everyone is that religion, is offensive, or tries to force beliefs on them.

On the contrary: it's clearly true. They all worship the Creator God of Genesis, who is also the promise-making God of Abraham, the law-giving God of Moses, the warmaking God of Joshua, and the kingmaking God of Saul, David, and Solomon--the God whose center of worship is traditionally located in Jerusalem and whose people trace their religious ancestry to the culture of the Middle East.That's a lot to have in common.Where these three world religions differ is not in the deity they revere, but in the standing they grant to various persons and texts that claim to speak for this deity. Do angels really exist? Has the Messiah come yet? Is Yeshua that person? Did Paul of Tarsus have special knowledge of God's will? Is Mohammed the special messenger? Do Popes have special knowledge of the divine will? Did Joseph Smith? Does a Sunni cleric? You see.It's tempting, when someone else's beliefs about one's favorite deity offend one, to say the offender has distorted the picture of the divine so much that the result is a new, strange, alien (read 'false') deity.But that's just the kind of polarization that sets in whenever family members have squabbles. Family members having heated arguments with each other say things like 'You're no brother of mine!' But the genetic facts and the shared history don't change. To observers outside the squabbling family it is very apparent that all parties in it are related.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : punctuation.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

One God is the Head of a Trinity (in some beliefs) and that same God is out to destroy anyone who believes in a Trinity? They think they do, but unless God is schizophrenic or totally vindictive, they can't possibly turn out to be the same God.