(Part 2) Top products from r/deism

> I'm curious as to what this community thinks of the Messiah [the Christ]

Which Messiah?

The Jewish Mashiach/Messiah (the Christ) in fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies? Within the narrative of the canon of the Christian Gospels, this is the claim Jesus makes. Jesus does not directly make a claim of Divinity (i.e., literally being the essence/avatar/supernatural deity made flash) - though the narratives often have people accuse Jesus of Divinity and Jesus plays to the confirmation bias of the accusers/supporters. Also, the position of the Jewish Mashiach/Messiah does not confer Divinity, merely a special place in relation to Yahweh. From the Jewish perspective, Jesus is NOT the Mashiach/Messiah.

The people that followed the cult of Jesus, and later seeded the movement towards Christian-Jews and then Christians, did believe that Jews was the Messiah, though they seemed to have ignored a number of prophecies and/or make the claim that Jesus will, somehow, fulfill the prophecies for the Messiah at the time of the Second Coming/End of Days and this will, again, somehow, be retroactive to the time of Jesus. The Christians adopted the tradition of Jesus, the Christ, having Divinity, as the God Yahweh made Flesh, in 325 BCE where the divinity of Jesus was made a part of mainstream Christian doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea. From the Christian perspective, Jesus is the Messiah.

> Does anyone share my beliefs?

It appears that your belief worldview incorporates an active intervening Deity and this Deity taking human form on earth in the form of Jesus, the Christ, with Jesus having supernatural attributes. Essential and foundational to the tale of Jesus, the Christ, is that of monotheistic Yahwehism.

I posit (from my time as a Deist) that from the baseline Deistic position, that this belief set is not compatible with Deism. Desim includes a cognitive designer creator that after the <whatever> of creation does not act as an active, as a personal, as an intervening, God. So no, a Deist would not share your views on a Divine Jesus, the Christ.

The same applies to the other intervening Gods/demi-Gods you listed.

From my position as an agnostic atheist towards Deism and a gnostic atheist, to a high degree of reliability and confidence, towards the monotheistic God of Abraham, that of monotheistic Yahwehism (which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam), I do not share your beliefs in the Divinity of Jesus as it is based upon, and unconditionally dependent upon, monotheistic Yahwehism. Since I hold the position that this God does not exist, rather than mere non-belief based upon an overwhelming lack of credible evidence to support or justify rejection of the null hypothesis that supernatural deities do not exist (the agnostic atheist position), I accept that I have assumed the burden of proof; The following is a copy and paste of my position regarding the fallacy and falsehood of monotheistic Yahwehism.

The most foundational belief in Christianity, and in all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), is that Yahweh/YHWH/YHVH, God, or Allah, is that "God" exists and there is the only one true revealed God (monotheism) - or monotheistic Yahwehism. As this is also the core of the Tanakh (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Qur'an/Koran (Islam); questions concerning the source of, and the validity of, this monotheistic Deity belief would raise significant doubt as to the Holy Book's validity as the word of God/Yahweh/Allah and to the very foundation of these belief systems. Yet, within the Holy Scriptures of predecessor Babylonian, Ugarit and Canaanite (hypothesis), and early Israelite religions/societies/cultures, the evidence points to the evolution and growth in the belief of the monothesitic Yahweh God from a polytheistic foundation of the El [El Elyon] (the Father God/God Most High) God pantheon. Yahweh (one of many sons of El) was a subordinate fertility/rain/warrior local desert God whom, through a process of convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism), was elevated from polytheism to henotheism (a monolatry for Yahweh; Yahweh is in charge, there are other Gods) to a monotheistic belief system (there is and, somehow, always has been, only Yahweh) as documented in the revealed holy scriptures of these religions and cultures that directly influenced and/or became the Biblical Israelites.

For your edification, here are some physical archeological and linguistic anthropological evidential sources documenting the development and growth of monotheistic Yahwehism/Allahism from a historical polytheistic foundation of revealed and holy scripture:

• [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel](http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) by Mark Smith<br />

• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
  Traces of the foundational polytheistic (many many gods, El is in charge) belief, and it's evolution into a man-driven politically and militarily motivated monolatry for Yahweh (Yahweh is in charge, acknowledgement of other gods) to monotheistic Yahwehism (where Yahweh is and, somehow, always been the one and only god “There is no god but Allah”/“You shall have no other gods before Me"), litter the Torah and Old Testament of the Bible which survived editing and redaction. To a lesser extent (as it is based upon already redacted material and with better editing/explicit rationalizations already included) the New Testament and Qur'an also show linkages to this foundational polytheistic belief. Given that the tradition of monotheistic Yahwehism is the essential foundation of the Abrahamic Religions, this falsehood propagates to any/all doctrine/dogma/claims based upon this foundation - rendering these religions, at best, demonstratively invalid; and nominally, morally and culturally reprehensible.
  
  With the dubious claim of monotheistic Yahwehism that the Abrahamic God is based upon, and that serves as the most essential foundation of the Tanakh/Bible/Qur'an narrative, then any claim that the Tanakh/Bible/Qur'an is valid as a source for any "truth" concerning Yahweh/Allah, and Jesus the Christ, is at best, highly questionable and suspect, and nominally, completely "non-truthful."
  
  > > Does anyone share my beliefs?
  
  > I believe that He [Jesus] did in fact exist.
  
  Jesus is the name given to the archetype of the person upon which the Jesus narrative in the New Testament is based upon. Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua, Jesus, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, was not an uncommon name within the Hebrew community and may represent the name of this archetypal person. The Jesus character is attributed with what can arguably be described as a lite version of the morality of Buddhism, and was a decent, though with a rather shallow philosophy, fellow.
  
  The Divine narrative attributed to the Jesus character, however, is a different issue and often represents a reprehensible morality.
  
  I accept the evidence that supports the position that there existed a fully human Jewish man who was a preacher/Rabbi/cult leader upon which the Jesus character, and narrative, was built upon.
  
  ----
  
  OP, since you have expressed a position of a Divine (supernatural deity attributes) Jesus, the Christ, will you answer the burden of proof to defend/support your position that Jesus the man existed? That Jesus was Yahweh (in essence/made Flesh)? that the monotheistic version of Yahwehism is correct and Yahweh exists?
  
  TL;DR An active intervening Deity (the Divine Jesus, the Christ, and the required essential monotheistic Yahwehism of the Christ claim) is not compatible with the baseline Deistic position of a non-active, non-intervening, cognitive-designer and creator, supernatural Deity. Then some more stuff on how the foundational and essential basis for a Divine Jesus the Messiah/Christ is fallacious and false.

> Humankind is predisposed to believe in a higher power. To me, this alone bears a lot of weight - what could cause a mass delusion of over 99% of earth's entire (historical) human population without SOME amount of truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Religion-Natural-Science-Not/dp/0199827265

Humans are certainly predisposed to believe in some type of higher power or mysticism or many other types of things.

But I disagree with if enough people feel one way or do something then there must be some divine truth to that.

Lots of people find puppies and small animal babies to be cute. Does that mean that god loves puppies? Extrapolating human feelings to aspects or the existence of god is VERY SILLY =)

> It is widely accepted that there are other life forms outside of our planet. It is also (somewhat less widely) accepted that other beings may exist in dimensions other than the 3rd, in which we exist. Therefore, the concept of an omniscient life form is within the realm of possibility.

Definitely a possibility, yes. Literally anything 'may' exist.

> To assert with certainty that there is no god claims knowledge and insight. Since atheists have no evidence that there is no god (and claim to need none, which is true) they obviously have no insight or knowledge, and thus cannot be certain. I am an agnostic atheist after all - I don't claim to "know" there is a god, I simply choose to believe there is one until I know for certain there isn't.

Yes, agnostic atheist/deist is good...but still haven't heard many good reasons for believing that there probably is a god...do you also believe in the tooth fairy until you know for certain it doesn't exist?

> The god I believe in isn't within the realm of human comprehension. It doesn't resemble a person in any way, and if it were to attempt to communicate with us, we would almost certainly have no idea.

How in the heck would you know if it resembles or doesn't resemble a person? You are claiming insights here. And second, if it were an omnipotent being then by definition it could communicate with humans if it wished.

> Regardless, to claim that something we can't even COMPREHEND does not exist, based on a lack of evidence, makes no sense to me. If you can't understand it, how can you understand the manner in which it does or does not exist?

Yes, strong theism/deism or strong atheism is silly.

> Regardless, to claim that something we can't even COMPREHEND does not exist, based on a lack of evidence, makes no sense to me.

One could say the same thing about theism/deism. If you can't comprehend it how in the world can you say that is does exist?

> However, I do believe in a higher consciousness that probably played some role in the creation of everything we can perceive - in other words, the universe.

That's fine, but the only arguments I heard from you in your post were 1. that lots of people believe in a god and 2. that it is possible for a god to exist.

Ad populum + you can't prove it doesn't exist is your evidence for god. This is not good lol!

I will link you to a couple of sites. I enjoy reading the Amazon reviews people submit, although you're going to find a lot of "this guy is just profiting...he's insane...this is NOT the Bible" type of stuff. But pay attention to the 5-star ratings, and what those people have to say. It is a VERY relevant book in my opinion.

Conversations With God - all three books in one

Here, I recommend this book instead: Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World.

From the wiki entry on it: "Sagan's book aims to explain the scientific method to laypeople, and to encourage people to learn critical or skeptical thinking. It explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science, and ideas that can be considered pseudoscience."

You might be interested in this book. Its more or less what you're saying. and its called transtheism.

> Can a Deist be spiritual? Is the belief in energies, spirits, and other entities against the concept?

Your two questions are actually unrelated. Rationalist/anti-supernaturalist/atheists can be spiritual.

http://www.spiritualatheism.com/

http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/atheism/

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com/2014/04/10/religious-atheists-interview-maria-greene-unitarian-universalist-humanists/

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Little-Book-Atheist-Spirituality/dp/0143114433

I think that deists can also believe in energies, spirits and other entities but they typically do not.

Well...Lovecraft was a materialist, so you could make the argument. But he was also at least agnostic if not outright atheist; you might be interested in looking up Against Religion: The Atheist Writings of H. P. Lovecraft.

In particular, Lovecraft was dubious about any sort of existence before or after this phase of organic life; the existence of the soul was just not something he ascribed to.