Conversation?

[Padraic Brown]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:00:10 -0400, Bert Olton

Would it be possible to actually start a conversation in this newsgroup?

I rather think you just did!

The Subject is supposed to be Deism. Instead, we get statements from
Islamic proselytizers, weird advertisers and a smattering of others.

Spam is common everywhere.

I am a Deist.

I am not, though favour certain of its basic tenets.

I believe that human prophets are full of nonsense and
political agendas. God does not speak to us through humans, because God
speaks to us through everything we see around us...the Earth, the
Universe. It is through our own observations of the world around us and
through Science that we learn about God.

By in large I am in agreement: the best revelation from God is the
very handiwork of the universe itself. That said, we _are_ part of
that handiwork and in so far as we may personally and subjectively
experience God, and in so far as some of us communicate that
experience to others (and thus are "prophets"), there is some sense in
taking that data and adding it to the general store of our
understanding of God.

While I don't agree that it is wholly "nonsense", the experience of
the prophet is a valid one. I don't think we should take that personal
experience and extrapolate from it a religious system in whole cloth,
either! We should each be so lucky to experience the Divine so
closely; but for those of us who haven't, we can still learn something
from the experience of others.

We do not come closer to God by listening to the rantings of lunatics,
nor do we get to know God better by reading the ancient texts of the
rantings of lunatics from past centuries. All we learn in those two
endeavors is what lunatics have had to say. Analyzing those statements
and agendas is a waste of time and mental energy.

Same comments as above apply to scriptures.

God is silent, yet speaking continually. You have to shut up to listen.
A conversational topic I'd like to try, in light of current Global
events, is how Deists view the world wide problem of Radical Islam.

I would suspect the answer is "per your above statements, but a whole
lot more"! That is, if you believe that all prophets are ranting
lunatics, then what must you think about Mohammed and his later
followers?

Another topic I'd love to hear Deistic view points on is the Global
problem of China's obvious ill intent in the world.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these topics! Perhaps some
kind of thread will develop -- after all, it seems that weird
advertisers haven't elicited any kind of response either here or in
the other Deist NG.

Padraic

Bert

[Bert Olton]

Padraic Brown wrote:

[large clipping]

Post by Padraic Brown

I believe that human prophets are full of nonsense and
political agendas. God does not speak to us through humans, because God
speaks to us through everything we see around us...the Earth, the
Universe. It is through our own observations of the world around us and
through Science that we learn about God.

By in large I am in agreement: the best revelation from God is the
very handiwork of the universe itself. That said, we _are_ part of
that handiwork and in so far as we may personally and subjectively
experience God, and in so far as some of us communicate that
experience to others (and thus are "prophets"), there is some sense in
taking that data and adding it to the general store of our
understanding of God.

Ah...however, the real logic there is that God's creation speaks to us
all equally. There is no special communication to one particular
person. We are all privy to what is being said and we are all given the
means to come to understand it - namely our reasoning abilities. We
don't need special interpreters. We especially don't need some one
claiming to be the sole voice of God on Earth.

Post by Padraic Brown
While I don't agree that it is wholly "nonsense", the experience of
the prophet is a valid one. I don't think we should take that personal
experience and extrapolate from it a religious system in whole cloth,
either! We should each be so lucky to experience the Divine so
closely; but for those of us who haven't, we can still learn something
from the experience of others.

Not so much. We learn best through our own experiences and I believe
God intended it that way. And therefor, actually, we *do* all
experience the Divine that closely. We just need to pay closer attention.

Post by Padraic Brown

We do not come closer to God by listening to the rantings of lunatics,
nor do we get to know God better by reading the ancient texts of the
rantings of lunatics from past centuries. All we learn in those two
endeavors is what lunatics have had to say. Analyzing those statements
and agendas is a waste of time and mental energy.

Same comments as above apply to scriptures.

Absolutely correct.

Post by Padraic Brown

God is silent, yet speaking continually. You have to shut up to listen.
A conversational topic I'd like to try, in light of current Global
events, is how Deists view the world wide problem of Radical Islam.

I would suspect the answer is "per your above statements, but a whole
lot more"! That is, if you believe that all prophets are ranting
lunatics, then what must you think about Mohammed and his later
followers?

My opinion of Mohammed can be summed up with his triadic edict to the
world around him: Convert to Islam, Pay Tribute to your Islamic
conquerors, or Die. Not a Deistic view of the Universe I don't
think...how about you?

As a foot note to this, or a conclusion, or better yet, maybe an
introduction, I really don't want to get totally involved in the
trashing of other religions for the sake of promoting Deism. I believe
that the ideas and logic of Deism so outstrip the thinking of other
religions that it is unnecessary to denigrate them. They wind up
denigrating themselves.

Bert

[Padraic Brown]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:42:50 -0400, Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
[large clipping]

Post by Padraic Brown

I believe that human prophets are full of nonsense and
political agendas. God does not speak to us through humans, because God
speaks to us through everything we see around us...the Earth, the
Universe. It is through our own observations of the world around us and
through Science that we learn about God.

By in large I am in agreement: the best revelation from God is the
very handiwork of the universe itself. That said, we _are_ part of
that handiwork and in so far as we may personally and subjectively
experience God, and in so far as some of us communicate that
experience to others (and thus are "prophets"), there is some sense in
taking that data and adding it to the general store of our
understanding of God.

Ah...however, the real logic there is that God's creation speaks to us
all equally. There is no special communication to one particular
person. We are all privy to what is being said and we are all given the
means to come to understand it - namely our reasoning abilities.

Quite so. Note that I never implied that prophets reveive some
"special communication". They've had a particular experience that the
rest of us haven't (though any of us may had similar general
experiences or even similar particular experiences). It's like going
to the fair -- most of us have been there, and we've probably all gone
to see the 4-H exibits. But only one or two people have crafted a
novel to describe the experience. This novel (like the stories of the
prophets) is consumed by many.

Post by Bert Olton
We
don't need special interpreters. We especially don't need some one
claiming to be the sole voice of God on Earth.

True that. Like I said, we shouldn't take their words as absolute
truth or the "sole voice of God".

Post by Bert Olton

Post by Padraic Brown
While I don't agree that it is wholly "nonsense", the experience of
the prophet is a valid one. I don't think we should take that personal
experience and extrapolate from it a religious system in whole cloth,
either! We should each be so lucky to experience the Divine so
closely; but for those of us who haven't, we can still learn something
from the experience of others.

Not so much.

Depends largely on the "prophet" in question and his ability to
communicate. Some are better than others.

Post by Bert Olton
We learn best through our own experiences and I believe
God intended it that way.

I don't disagree. However, we also learn through the experiences of
others; often as a first step taken before we fly the nest.

Post by Bert Olton
And therefor, actually, we *do* all
experience the Divine that closely. We just need to pay closer attention.

There is something to be said for that!

Post by Bert Olton

Post by Padraic Brown

God is silent, yet speaking continually. You have to shut up to listen.
A conversational topic I'd like to try, in light of current Global
events, is how Deists view the world wide problem of Radical Islam.

I would suspect the answer is "per your above statements, but a whole
lot more"! That is, if you believe that all prophets are ranting
lunatics, then what must you think about Mohammed and his later
followers?

My opinion of Mohammed can be summed up with his triadic edict to the
world around him: Convert to Islam, Pay Tribute to your Islamic
conquerors, or Die. Not a Deistic view of the Universe I don't
think...how about you?

That quote is tragic indeed. I find Islam to be a religion of almost
schizophrenic opposites. At one moment (that is, you can read one
verse or sura in the Koran) it teaches tolerance and defence of other
religions; and then in another moment it calls for savage destruction
of same. Of the three "Abrahamic" religions, in their modern forms, I
think Islam is presently a distant third as far as any measuring scale
you care to use is concerned. There are consistency problems with the
text (such as the example above) and there certainly way to many
wankers in control of the thing.

Specific to your question, no Islam does not present a Deistic view of
the universe. I don't think that would even be possible! Deism
requires as a first step the examining of the evidence and the drawing
of the conclusion that it could only come about because of a Creator.
Islam, like most other religions, goes about things in the other
direction: God is taken as a faith based given, and from that point
the existence of the universe is extrapolated.

Post by Bert Olton
As a foot note to this, or a conclusion, or better yet, maybe an
introduction, I really don't want to get totally involved in the
trashing of other religions for the sake of promoting Deism.

Indeed not. There are plenty of places where one can find religion
being trashed (including Deism, which I have defended a couple of
times). But there is a difference between stating honestly held
opinions (espeically opinions based on fact) and merely trashing
something in order to prop up the position of something else!

Post by Bert Olton
I believe
that the ideas and logic of Deism so outstrip the thinking of other
religions that it is unnecessary to denigrate them. They wind up
denigrating themselves.

This is probably true. But we also have to understand that Deism uses
a different kind of thinking -- one more parallel with science.
Typical religions use a kind of logic and reason that may provide
internal consistency but do not necessarily jive with external norms
of logical thought and reason.

Padraic

Post by Bert Olton
Bert

[Bert Olton]

Padraic,

I haven't abandoned ship...this time of year is tough for me with crazy
numbers of work hours. Your post deserves a better reply than my for
the moment fried mind can put together...I'll be responding this weekend!

Bert

[Padraic Brown]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:43:52 -0400, Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
Padraic,
I haven't abandoned ship...this time of year is tough for me with crazy
numbers of work hours. Your post deserves a better reply than my for
the moment fried mind can put together...I'll be responding this weekend!

I am, of course, quite interested to continue the conversation!

Padraic

Post by Bert Olton
Bert

[Bert Olton]

Post by Padraic Brown
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:43:52 -0400, Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
Padraic,
I haven't abandoned ship...this time of year is tough for me with crazy
numbers of work hours. Your post deserves a better reply than my for
the moment fried mind can put together...I'll be responding this weekend!

I am, of course, quite interested to continue the conversation!

Padraic,

As am I...my thanks for your patience.

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by Bert Olton
Quite so. Note that I never implied that prophets reveive some
"special communication". They've had a particular experience that the
rest of us haven't (though any of us may had similar general
experiences or even similar particular experiences). It's like going
to the fair -- most of us have been there, and we've probably all gone
to see the 4-H exibits. But only one or two people have crafted a
novel to describe the experience. This novel (like the stories of the
prophets) is consumed by many.

I believe we need to go Socratic, then. We're talking about two
different definitions of the word "prophet". My understanding of a
prophet is someone like Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. Those are people
who have been ascribed, by others I grant you, but ascribed nonetheless,
divine authority. They are not just simple folk who went to a county
fair and wrote a novel about the evening's experiences.

By inference, you can garner my definition of the word 'prophet'. I'm
not clear on yours.

Bert

[Padraic Brown]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:02:01 -0400, Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton

Post by Padraic Brown
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:43:52 -0400, Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
Padraic,
I haven't abandoned ship...this time of year is tough for me with crazy
numbers of work hours. Your post deserves a better reply than my for
the moment fried mind can put together...I'll be responding this weekend!

I am, of course, quite interested to continue the conversation!

Padraic,
As am I...my thanks for your patience.

Post by Padraic Brown

Post by Bert Olton
Quite so. Note that I never implied that prophets reveive some
"special communication". They've had a particular experience that the
rest of us haven't (though any of us may had similar general
experiences or even similar particular experiences). It's like going
to the fair -- most of us have been there, and we've probably all gone
to see the 4-H exibits. But only one or two people have crafted a
novel to describe the experience. This novel (like the stories of the
prophets) is consumed by many.

I believe we need to go Socratic, then. We're talking about two
different definitions of the word "prophet". My understanding of a
prophet is someone like Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. Those are people
who have been ascribed, by others I grant you, but ascribed nonetheless,
divine authority. They are not just simple folk who went to a county
fair and wrote a novel about the evening's experiences.

They are people, normal people, who have had _some_ kind of experience
that is accounted either by them or by others as an experience of the
Divine. Indeed, others may ascribe to them some kind of divine
authority.

My comments regarding a novel about visiting the fair was simply in
order to illustrate the relative rarity of prophetic records
(generally accounted as "scripture" in those religions that deem them
important). In other words, many people may experience going to the
fair, and many people may experience some kind of "particular
revelation". Not very many people become novelists based on their
experience, and not many people become prophets who transmit their
experiences to others.

Post by Bert Olton
By inference, you can garner my definition of the word 'prophet'. I'm
not clear on yours.

Anyone who experiences the Divine in some particular way (a vision, an
intense meditation, a Road to Damascus Event, or whathaveyou) and who
then communicates this "particular revelation" (that is, a revelation
particular to the individual in question) to the masses who have _not_
shared in that particular revelation.

Moses went up on a mountain, saw God and came back with not one but
five books and ten general laws. Jesus went in to the desert for forty
days, presumably experienced God, certainly experienced the Satan and
came back the Gospel. Mohammed went into the desert too (as I recall),
experienced God, and came back with a whole thick book. Smith went out
to the back forty, experienced God, and ended up with a book.
Newbrough sat at a typewriter, experienced God, and ended up with two
thick books.

Now, on to the matter of "ascription of Divine authority". Some of
these men (there of course have been women, too) you must recognise,
others you may not. Some of them -- Jesus, certainly, Mohammed and
Smith have all been given some kind of "divine authority". Of course,
Jesus was deified, the others weren't. I think the matter of any
divine authority resting in these individuals comes from the religions
that have accreted around them: Christianity around Jesus, Mormonism
around Smith. What about those prophets around whom no lasting
religious movement has grown? What about Newbrough? Is he less of a
"prophet" because there is no religion around his revealed scriptures?

The Deist position, as I understand it and please correct it if wrong,
is that "prophets", or at least the authority religionists vest in
them and their "revelations", are trivial in comparison to the
Creator's own revelation itself. I suspect that Deist would look at
all of the above works and grant no particular high status to any of
them, as they're all works written by people.

Padraic

Post by Bert Olton
Bert

[Bert Olton]

Padraic Brown wrote:

[huge clip]

Post by Padraic Brown
The Deist position, as I understand it and please correct it if wrong,
is that "prophets", or at least the authority religionists vest in
them and their "revelations", are trivial in comparison to the
Creator's own revelation itself. I suspect that Deist would look at
all of the above works and grant no particular high status to any of
them, as they're all works written by people.
Padraic

My apologies for cutting so much from your last post, but what you say
actually boils down to this, your last paragraph. And, in a sense, it
exemplifies the misunderstanding of Deist views.

Some of the words attributed to Moses, some of the words attributed to
Jesus, some of the words attributed to many "prophets" are recognized as
valuable by Deists like myself. They are very simple, very profound
survival techniques...advice on how to live with one another. The Ten
Commandments for instance, are decent advice on how a bunch of people
can work towards getting along with each other. For the most part,
they're just "common sense".

Another example is the "Golden Rule"...treat others as you would have
others treat you.

No, those words are not trivial. They are wise and good and are based
on the experience of centuries of human existence. On centuries of
observation and coming to conclusions based on rational thinking.

That's the key to Deism. Rational thought. Reasonable, honest
conclusions drawn from scientific, human observation and learning from
the world around one.

And there is God. In the world/universe around us. Teaching us via how
the world works best.

Bert

[Padraic Brown]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:46:12 -0400, Bert Olton

Post by Bert Olton
[huge clip]

Post by Padraic Brown
The Deist position, as I understand it and please correct it if wrong,
is that "prophets", or at least the authority religionists vest in
them and their "revelations", are trivial in comparison to the
Creator's own revelation itself. I suspect that Deist would look at
all of the above works and grant no particular high status to any of
them, as they're all works written by people.
Padraic

My apologies for cutting so much from your last post, but what you say
actually boils down to this, your last paragraph. And, in a sense, it
exemplifies the misunderstanding of Deist views.
Some of the words attributed to Moses, some of the words attributed to
Jesus, some of the words attributed to many "prophets" are recognized as
valuable by Deists like myself.

And nowhere did I say that Deists don't find value in the true
teachings of such folk! Did not Thomas Jefferson seek to weed out the
"wheat from the chaff" of Jesus's teaching, resulting in the famous
Jefferson Bible?

I hope you didn't take me wrong: I'm not saying Deists don't find
value in the works ascribed to prohphets; only that the works of
prophets (or the scriptures that contain them) should not be taken "as
divine revelation in toto".

Post by Bert Olton
They are very simple, very profound
survival techniques...advice on how to live with one another. The Ten
Commandments for instance, are decent advice on how a bunch of people
can work towards getting along with each other. For the most part,
they're just "common sense".

Agreed.

Post by Bert Olton
Another example is the "Golden Rule"...treat others as you would have
others treat you.

Also agreed.

Post by Bert Olton
No, those words are not trivial. They are wise and good and are based
on the experience of centuries of human existence. On centuries of
observation and coming to conclusions based on rational thinking.

Also agreed. I think the point is that those who follow revealed
religions (such as Christianity) take the above inter alia to _be_
God's revelation rather than common sense teachings; and they base the
religion on that assumption. Whereas, as I understand it, Deism does
_not_ rest its belief on such things, prefering in stead only what can
reasonably understood as God's own revelation. Whether the teachings
of these ancients is "good" or "bad" is beside the point.

Post by Bert Olton
That's the key to Deism. Rational thought. Reasonable, honest
conclusions drawn from scientific, human observation and learning from
the world around one.
And there is God. In the world/universe around us. Teaching us via how
the world works best.

Rational thought as opposed to "scriptural revelation". Sensible
conclusions as opposed to "blind faith".

Padraic

Post by Bert Olton
Bert