Deist vs Theist

All religious texts being written by man means one has to first put their faith in men before they can put their faith in a God.

Is this statement true or false and what implications does it have on religious doctrines?

Would a deists take on things not be wiser than that of a theists?

 

Are we talking about general revelation, as opposed to special revelation?

 

Do deists accept special revelation as valid?

 

My question was for the first presupposition

 

But general revelation would only apply to deists would it not? How does general revelation lead to the name and desires of a God?

 

Why would general revelation not apply to everyone?

 

Because the moment you take it past general revelation and begin to talk about what God is you move into special revelation.

Its the difference between deism and theism.

Do you not understand the OP?

 

So you don't think general revelation leads you to God?

 

that is a true statment

ie.... not a word, did anyone learn, from their god (if they say otherwise, label that liar)

that is a question i am having a hard time with.

Are you asking, if a deist would not pick up a bible because ......?

I dont know this argument and why i posted to include myself in this debate

 

So the answer is no you do not understand the OP.

- - - Updated - - -

Deists reject revelation and authority so why would they pick up a bible?

If we cannot know God from God then wouldn't the deists take on things be wiser than the theists?

 

If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...."exaggerated"...then all bets are off on Jesus, aren't they?

So the first order of faith (for a Christian) is....belief in the honesty and accuracy of those MEN (and the others). Not belief in GOD or Jesus, which would be secondary.

 

If you'll answer the question with a yes or no, you'll see where we can go. I understand the OP, but you gave a presupposition first, so we can't go any further without answering my first question.

 

The difference between "natural theology" and "sacred theology" ("How To Think About God" by Mortimer Adler)

 

Here is your first question.

"Are we talking about general revelation, as opposed to special revelation?"

First off how can I answer this with a yes or no?

Secondly it proves you do not understand the OP. It does not matter if say Mathew says he came to his knowledge through general or special revelation YOU have to take his word for it don't you?

The OP is very simple, very specific as you can see by the highlighted.

 

does a diest not believe in General revelation?

 

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.

A deist looks at the world and says yes there is a God and that is where it ends, no doctrines, no scriptures, no bible. As I said the moment you take a general revelation from "yes I think a god exists" to "God exists and this is his name" you are no longer a deist.

 

Finally, so an Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent God, has no way of communicating with His creation? He designs them to communicate with each other, but he can't in turn communicate with them? He designs them to do something He can't or wont do?

 

Tell me where would you get the answers to these questions?

From God?

 

well, lets explore your first proclamation. You have to put your faith in a text before you do God, and that would be a diest, according to the initial post, so thats a contradiction. Then you ask would it be wiser to be a deist verses a theist, when you're clearly operating from a viewpoint (op), that is erroneous.

What would I say? A person that looks at General Revelation and acknowledges God, is clearly left with a divine mandate. Search for this "God". Because otherwise you've got a someone who sees something that should make him question the existance of everything, but isn't willing to pursue anything. Does this sound like the intellect of a wise person to you?

 

No that's a theist. So far you do not understand the OP.

Because the only knowledge of God we have comes from man regardless of the type of revelation I asked if it would be wiser to be a deist.

Again you do not understand the OP.

Why avoid the question?

Deist says there is a God but rejects revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Men cannot know God beyond his existance.

Theists say there is a God and accept revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. Men CAN know God beyond his existance.

I wonder how many pages of this it will take before we get to the point where you understand the OP.

 

You are correct I misunderstood your definition of deism. I thought you were using the first statement, and question to qualify a diest. I appologize I was wrong, you were right in your definition of a diest. I misread it.

But my last post about the deist still stands.

A deist is a person who takes "general revelation" (nature and existance), and decides not to pursue God. He sees everything, acknowledges a creator, and decides to not pursue that creator. The deist reasons this creator gave him the ability to communicate with the other creatures, but for some reason the creator can't or wont do the same with his creation. How intelligent is the person who believes that?

 

many read with curiocity

but most are evolved theist

like the atheist

they did.

Galileo, darwin, the majority of science itself is because man stepped away from idiots holding a book claiming 'god'

I claim that the whole population explosion of the last 200 yrs is because human beings began to realize we can learn and contribute well beyond theology (the religious beliefs)

 

I would fit the description of a deist. I reject the Bible because it was written by man. To believe in the Bible as the word of God one needs to believe that the men who wrote and edited the Bible were all divinely guided by God. Man is fallible... imperfect... and I for one would not pin my faith on what a bunch of people said a couple thousand years ago.

To me God is real, but not because a text or religious representative told me so.

 

I think most people believe in God first... then they just tie that to what ever belief they were raised with, but really the only part they honestly believe in is the God part

how many people seriously think their God is a jealous and vengeful God?

.

 

So a God made you and you see no reason to seek Him?