₦airaland Forum

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

Read the foregoing again?

Where does the difference arise - yes - it arises with respect to believing in God's personal intervention.

The definition states that "Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe" . . . . .and it is preposterous to argue that this is not a theistic viewpoint.

This is in fact the prime theistic thought.

Besides note that not all deists even reject the idea of the personal God!

See the words above -

Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs

Given this alone the argument that they are not theists is just a joke.

There are all sorts of Deists. United by the belief in God the Creator. Specific beliefs may vary. There are even so-called Christian-Deists. What would you call those - non-theists? ? ?

Please.

InesQor:
viaro and Deep Sight:

I think the fundamental difference between Deism and Theism is that Theism believes God plays a very active role in the scheme of things, while Deism believes God's direct role is very passive. Since Deism denies an active role, all supernatural matters are summarily dismissed, while Theism itself hangs upon the supernatural with every breath. can we then say Deism is a form of Theism? I don't think so.

I believe some people group them together because they are both in opposition of atheism (belief that God does not exist) and various forms of pantheism (belief that God is not a discrete singular being).

Thanks for the input but you are decidedly wrong I think.

The definition of THEISM is NOT and has never been “God plays an active role in the scheme of things.” That is the further belief of specific sets of theists – mostly religious ones.

Theism is defined as belief in God or gods.

As far as that is concerned., then Deism is a sub set of theism.

I think you are trying to narrow theism to only those theists who have personal and religious ideas of God; - that is not a compound definition of theism.

The compound definition is and remains “a belief in God or gods.”

How can a Deist who believes in God be then said to not to belong to the large family of theism?

None of the foregoing is worth my time -

Theism has to do with a belief in God or gods.

Deism has to do with a belief in the existence of at least one God who created all things.

I suppose it missed you that i have pointed out TWICE the fact that both words are actually sourced from the same word - "god"

One is sourced from the latin for "god" and the other from the greek for "god."

What is theism if not a belief in God or gods?

And what is deism if not a belief in God who created and nothing more?

Deism is therefore a subset of Theism - and no amount of grammar in the world can change that fact.

unless of course you are willing to claim that Deists do not believe in the existence of God.

I hope that such a leap would be beyond even you.

And note that you claimed that Deism does not have even a shadow of THEISM!

Don't write that in your thesis o: you go fail big-time.

viaro:
Don't be such a toad. Deism is not theism, not even a form or shadow of it.

Wonders shall never cease.


It appears that some people are so far gone in religious sentiment that they exist only to contradict any thing uttered by the non-religious mind – even if such results in very strange statements indeed.


Let’s have a look at the statement above from our Christian Knight Viaro –

Deism is not theism, not even a form or shadow of it.

Lawd have mercy! Viaro, are you kidding me?


I would never believed you were capable of such unspeakable incongruity.


Not even a form or shadow of it, did you say? ? ? Ha ha, I would love to see you defend this one.


Although I hardly need to, let me just post the definitions of both words here –


There are from wikipedia’s pages on Deism and Theism respectively –

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.


Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.[1][2]

In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of a God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

And under the Title Types of Theism there is a list and description of different types of Theism, which includes this –

Deism
Main article: Deism
While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general definition given above.
• Deism is the belief that at least one deity exists and created the world, but that the creator(s) does/do not alter the original plan for the universe.[9] Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.[10]
o Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.
o Panendeism combines deism with panentheism, believing the universe is a part (but not the whole) of deity
o Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods existed, but do not intervene with the universe.

Thus it is very very strange indeed that you would say that Deism is “not even a form or shadow” of theism.

To the extent that Theism is about belief in a Deity, and that Deism connotes acceptance of a Deity, then it is simply preposterous for you to state that Diesm is “not even a form or shadow” of Theism. That is not only eminently false; it is also ridiculous.

This is all the more underscored by the following –

The words deism and theism are both derived from the word god:
• The root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means "god".

• The root of the word theism is the Greek word theos (θεός), which also means "god".

Indeed the very word “Deist” is indicative of “Diety” – which is the basis of Theism.

Ready to retract that awful gaffe, Viaro?

And yet you call ME illiterate!

Let me just note that whereas the positions I have set out in this thread so far indicate - 
1. Belief in God
2. Belief that the purpose of God is Harmony –
And despite the fact that we all well know you agree with 1 & 2 above, you have barged into this thread declaring that the propositions it sets out are “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

I can only conclude that you consider belief in God to be “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

Well! I guess it’s now pretty clear what your motivation is! You have allowed yourself to become so bitter with me that you end up determined to oppose everything I state: even when I simply state that God exists! You now wind up declaring that Deism has nothing to do with Theism – and thereby embarrass yourself very seriously ! ! ! This bitterness also leads you to describe a belief in God (which is what this thread espouses) as “deep shi.t”, and  “illiterate” and “a farce.”

Bitterness is not good for you, son: you need to let it go. See what it’s doing to your credentials?

I do wonder Viaro, I honestly wonder!

Hi Kunle -

Your question was put to me sometime ago in a slightly different form.

Here is what i had to say -

The first ground will be my understanding of what is set forth within the message, and the second ground will be my honest, most limited, most imperfect, human perspective.

The first ground - I read within the message that God in HIS Divine perfection emitts unimaginably great heat and energy, and that after the first creation, the gradual cooling-off of the radiations from God precipitate the forming of further creations further and further away from God. I understand from this that God therefore only directly spawned the primordial spiritual worlds, and that the continued precipitations/ radiations from these worlds, bearing God's white-hot creative-heat, as they cooled off, formed further worlds, and ultimately, the world of gross matter.

As always, i did not just swallow this hook, line and sinker without thought, and i find that there are reasons why this makes sense to me within my world View. These reasons are -

1. I can clearly sense and even see the existence of non-physical things even in this world: love, thought, dreams, telepathy, pyscho-kinesis, the list is endless. Accordingly i am firmly aware that i am a being that exists and is real even without my physical body, arms, legs, nose, mouth, etc. I have often noted that each human being "hears" the thoughts of his own mind clearly. Now since these are not audible sounds, he clearly does not hear them with his physical ears. This makes it clear that the inner man has ears of its own. The inner mind. The Inner Sipiritual.

2. Thus i see that the world of matter is not all that exists.

3. Given that the physical body dies, i am also aware that the spiritual part becomes disembodied from the material part at death. I do not assert this as proof of anything to anyone, but to my mind it seems clear that the spiritual being will necessarily exist within a realm of its own nature, just as the material body existed in a material world.

4. Thus spiritual realms do exist. And by the very transitory nature of matter it seems clear to me that such realms pre-date and post-exist matter, if i may use such terms. It really is like saying that the world of forms and ideas is eternal, while matter is transitory.

5. If this is true, then it falls into place as espoused by the mesage that the direct creation of God, is primordial spiritual, and not material.

Now there is a little piece of scientifice thinking that crystalizd this very clearly for me a short while ago.

Here i dovetail into my human understanding -

I was staring at a block of ice, which i had pulled out of my glass of beer. As i stared at it it began to melt, turning into water in the tray. I know from physics that given time that very water will dry up into the air. It does not dissappear, it changes form, just as surely as if we put the Ice in a heated pan, it will become water, and eventually steam, and the steam will float of airily into the air.

It struck me that Ice represents gross matter - it is hard and tangible, like your physical body. When heated however, it becomes steam, which is like your spirit - intangible and mobile, flexible, and dynamic, able to float, soar, move easily. More importantly, it struck me that since in physics, greater heat causes greater motion, then the intangible (steam in this instance) must necessaily be more heated than the tangible.

(This is why great passion feels to us like heat in our chest, and emotionlessness is described as "cold"

Thus the spiritual is more heated that the physical - and accordingly, is closer to the ultimate heat - which is God.

I thought - if the spiritual is heated and intangible, just how heated and intangible will the Ultimate heat be? That hints at the pure divinity of God.

When the process is looked at in the reverse, it immediatley bears out that which is espoused in the Grail Message: That the cooling off of great heat, will eventually result in the appearance of hard matter! - Just as surely as if steam is cooled off, it will become water, and eventually, further cooling will result in the hard immovable ice! This thinking led me to see the simple and yet flawless beauty and scientific accuracy in the assertion that the cooling-off of God's radiations precipitates the development of further forms of creation, and ultimately hard matter.

It also helps me see and understand death and the rising of the spiritual towards God, and toward the primordial spiritual, as a journey of increasing intangibility, and thus increasing purity.

I hope the foregoing is sufficient, as i do not wish to get distracted from the Essentials of this thread.

viaro:
No worries. You quickly wave this apology because you're quite unable to maintain course with your previous heckling against what others believe? Or do I take it that you're just not man enough to have your deism scrutinized in the same way as you've been damning the beliefs of others (particularly Christians) as b[color=Black]ullsh[/color]it (B.S)?

I don't have a problem with your worldview, trust me - there are people around me that are into that (and for their sakes I'd been slow to deal with yours). I just wanted to see what would be left of your worldview after I'd skinned it through and through. But relax - nothing you say further in this thread matters; but when you heckle Christians in future, look over your shoulders . . . I might be around to smart you up.

Viaro- I do not mean that i do not welcome questions - i always do.

But i sense the purpose of your queries is perhaps something akin to t.it for tat - which you have admitted.

I seek to show that a belief in God without further extended religious doctrines is a cogent and sensible path to tow.

I welcome you to contradict that if you will.

_{Quote from the same wiki page on Deism i have been referring to above -}

The words deism and theism are both derived from the word god:

The root of the word deism is the Latin word deus, which means "god".
The root of the word theism is the Greek word theos (θεός), which also means "god".

Given that quoted above, it is strange to me to see a Theist who has issues with Deism - given that it really is a form of Theism skimmed down to its most bare essential - namely that there is God - and nothing more; except perhaps a further inference that the nature of things in the natural world could be pointers to their Source (God).

OLAADEGBU:
Your definition of Deism to which you subscribe states that "a supreme being created the universe", so my question is how did you deists arrive at the conclusion that a supreme being created the universe if not from what was clearly stated in the Bible?

No it is not correct to assume that such a belief in a Deity that creates comes from the Bible.

You are well aware that an almost standard feature of the belief systems of almost every tribe or race historically has included beliefs about a creator. Even your own Yoruba race has its own legends of a creator and so do other races - such were clearly not derived from the Bible.

Rather i am inclined to say that the recognition  that there is a Source for all that exists is a natural and logical inference that any person can easily make and can also be intuitively derived.

viaro:
Hahaha! This thread is de[color=Black]ep shi[/color]t!

Pardon my opening remarks, DeepSight, but I'd expected far much more from you than the piffling in your OP. Your effort in opening the thread is well appreciated, if I take it to be in response to my cudgelling you to have a grip on your deism. But it's remarkable that even before viaro came here, others are asking questions already.

Nothing new in what I already understood about deism in general; but what you outlined in your propositions quite simply and essentially leave far too many holes to be taken seriously.

I shall not go down the ultra-shanky route of responding to each line of your propositions, for that would be rather drab and unfruitful. Instead, we shall be more concerned with the philosophy behind your deism, since it requires reducible probables for its physicalist appraisals. What you have presented is nothing more than deism as a natural religion divorced from indices of any "celestial spiritual" phenomena (since you take these latter to be "largely assumed beliefs".

Consequently, the point at which your most serious problem stands is at proposition #3: 'What can the individual say that he knows for sure?'. Your certainty of "knowables" under the illusion that, as regards what you believe, you may "rationally and intuitively know for certain", quite simply consigns your discourse to the field of epistemic logic. And that again presents you with far more problems than you can handle. I recommend for now that you carefully read up Fitch's paradox of knowability before you proceed any further. You disregard my advice at your peril - and if that be the case, I'd proceed to quickly wrap up your de[color=Black]ep shi[/color]t once and for all.

Dress warm.

I am sorry Viaro, but it is not the purpose of this thread to prove or justify anything. I merely wish to share my personal views with those interested.
So regrettably i may not be able to attend your queries.

Thanks.

Carrying on now.

I have indicated above that that which the individual can know, is primarily that there is a Source.

In response to the questions above by Olaadegbu  and muhsin regarding "God" i have already said that -

 1. We can apprehend that there is a source for the things we see that exist.

 2. I call that source "God"  - - -  - > BUT -

3. There is no need to use the word God at all! It is sufficient if we maintain the word – “the Source”.

Now I think that No. 3 above is important because the word “God” means too many different things to too many different people. Note that I say this not as a negation of God, but simply in order to avoid the heckler who may wish to make the word “God” an issue. Thus wherever I use the word “God” in this thread bear in mind that I refer simply to “the Source.”

Now before proceeding let us look again at some further features of Deistic thought –

Deism can be a belief in a deity absent of any doctrinal governance or precise definition of the nature of such a deity. Deism bears a relationship to naturalism. As such Deism gives credit for the formation of life and the universe to a higher power that by design allows only natural processes to govern creation.

Note that it is absolutely central to the Deist worldview that there is an absence of doctrinal governance or precise definition of the nature of the Deity.

Many persons have for this reason accused the Deist of being vague; and of worshipping a “nameless God” – but hang on – does it not make sense? I think it does.

The reason for this is simple and should be self evident – let us return to that which I stated earlier – namely that we focus on that which we know or can know, and not that which we do not know or assume.

Now can it really be said by anybody that man has any accurate knowledge of what the Source is? The Source forever remains a mystery to us.

This is why the most honest thing one can do is simply to admit that whilst it is evident that there must a Source – we do not know and may not be able to understand the nature of the source

This is why the Deist develops no “doctrines” concerning God (“the Source) but simply is content in the certainty of its existence.

And this in my humble opinion is the most honest path to take – for God is absolutely ineffable and incomprehensible.

Nature as the Reference Point
Any understanding to be derived of life, must naturally be derived from the natural world we see about us – for the natural world is indeed the only thing which we can firmly see and are aware of evidently – and which can give us hints about the nature of “the Source.”

This is perhaps as simple as saying that we can have hints of a father’s genetic make-up when looking at his child: thus that looking at nature, we may have hints about “the Source” of nature.

It’s really as simple as that.

Be right back. . .

I do not belong on the staircase at all.

I am spiritual and not religious.

OLAADEGBU:
I understand that you suppose that there is a source which every sensible person should be able to comprehend but if I may ask, where did you get the assumption that "God created the universe" as explained in your definition of Deism?

Hi Olaadegbu -

I belive your statement answers itself.

You said -

I understand that you suppose that there is a source which every sensible person should be able to comprehend

Once apprehending that there is a source - that source is what I call "God"

I could just as easily not use the word "God" and continue to call it "The Source" - It would amount to the same thing.

Well frankly that question is not the concern of this thread. This thread, as i have written above: is concerned with what we may rationally know: and not that which we may not know. For me, it is rational to suppose that there is a source: I call that source God.

I needn't know whether the source has another source: whether it is self existent or eternal: i needn't know anything save that: there is a source.

For the purpose of this thread and for now i will be leaving it that simple.

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.

In a slew of ceaseless queries and snide comments, persons on this forum have consistently sought either clarification or mockery from the discourses on the Deistic world-view. I think it is apt that we take a short look at the Essentials of Deism and see perhaps exactly what the Deist is on about. In this I will of course proceed along my own peculiar Deistic views – although as we go along I hope to discuss the generality of Deist views and thoughts.


Now let us hang back a second and contextualize this:


We find ourselves in this world, living, thinking, feeling, intelligent beings. We see the world and universe about us. We are aware that we were not always here: that we were born - and we are aware that we will not always be here: that we die.


In truth perhaps it may be said that this is about all we can be absolutely certain of.


However we are typically born in one or more already existing religious worldviews – wherein we are taught a vast array of already existing and accepted “religious truths.” The vast majority of us end up accepting the Religion and Worldview of their birth and family as the one for ourselves. Some stray however.


Opening proposition: Having found ourselves in the natural world, it makes sense to look at the natural world about us in our search for truth. This natural world, is what I will call “The book of Life.”


Proposition Number One: [/b]Having found ourselves in the world: and having seen clearly that mankind is not perfect, we should not presume any of the “religious truths” that we have met within the world to be necessarily true or correct or perfect – but should rather seek to genuinely find that which is the truth about our existence in this world. Here I am not saying that one should reject the religion of one’s birth: but only that each human being owes it to himself to question himself, make inquiries, and search deeply for truth. It may well be that such a search will lead back to the religion of one’s birth but nonetheless –


A sincere self-examination and personal search for truth should always be undertaken by everybody. This is the first proposition.


[b]Proposition Number Two: In the individual’s search for truth, the individual must ask himself which things he can honestly say that he knows within his mind to be true and which things he has merely accepted by an assumption. The individual having observed the nature of mankind must be keenly aware that history is replete with deceit: and that not everything that is reported to have happened can necessarily be believed to have happened, and vice versa. Most importantly, I think, the individual has to ask himself – in the context of his existence - which supposed truths are relevant and which are irrelevant?


Basically the individual is urged to accept as truth that which his mind knows for sure to be true – not necessarily because he has merely been told that such is true. He is urged also to sift the wheat from the Chaff by determining that which, even if true: is irrelevant to his existence as opposed to that which is both true and relevant to his existence. This is the second proposition.


Proposition Number Three: Now the Search for Truth proceeds. What can the individual say that he knows for sure? The very first question: the eternal question in the search for truth has been – where did all this (the world) come from? What is the source of all things?


Without much ado: and without the need for any advanced argument the Individual by common sense can agree within his mind that the world about him must have a source just as everything he observes has a source, a process for its existence. The Individual can apprehend that given the vastness of the world about him, and the incredible nature of its natural wonders, its creatures, its plants, and its natural beauty: that the source is a meaningful source: and that the source is of great capability and potential.


Expressed in the many different languages of mankind this source is what mankind throughout history have intuitively referred to as “God” – the maker of all things. This is the third proposition.


Proposition Number Four After the thought – “God created all things” – the next logical thought is “for what purpose?” – basically the quest of the individual to determine the purpose of his existence – and contextualize this with the purpose of all existence. Implicit in this already, for the discerning is a recognition that the individual bears a need to understand his existence in the context of all existence – and this implies that he has a need – he is compelled towards – blending with – or harmonizing with his environment and all existence.


The Individual can thus both logically and intuitively grasp that the purpose of existence - and his existence – is harmony. This is the fourth proposition.


Initial Summation: Beyond these, I am not sure that there is much else that the individual can honestly claim that he knows for certain. Everything else there is to be known, which is relevant to the individual’s existence, I believe are inferences and intuitive perceptions from the foregoing basic truths. I can only say for now that the advanced and exact knowledge of supposed celestial spiritual happenings which are contained within the many religions - in my humble opinion – cannot really be said to be known for sure by anybody, and are thus largely assumed beliefs – and not steady and certain truth. This is the basis for my claim to that which I believe I may rationally and intuitively know for certain; namely that there is a source – God and that the purpose of the source is harmony.

Be right back. . .

^^^ I already explained that that controversion is exactly what the "mystery" of the Trinity leads to!

I am doubtful that you read #83 carefully, Viaro.

^^^ Let's not jump the gun - i dont want to get confused: i need to know if the OP regards "darkness" as nothing, given his statements.

We can proceed from there.

I don't understand? What was your request?

I thought #83 had dealt with that?

Am confused.

Viaro - And Arius aside: take the following on its own -

1.   That the Bible teaches the son to have been begotten

2.   That being begotten implies having had a beginning

3.   That the son thus had a beginning

4.   Thus that the son cannot be said to be “Almighty God” - WHO NEVER HAD A BEGINNING.

Does it not shatter the Trinity doctrine? What explanation would you use to escape this one?

^^^ What did you make of this -

Perhaps if you had a son whose DNA perfectly matches yours, that son would be called “perfect viaro” – whilst a man like Arius would call him so, and yet carefully note that he is NOT Viaro.

^^^ Please affirm to me if the following is correct or wrong -

----> Light is something

----> Darkness is nothing

This will assist me in understanding you and the OP.

viaro:
Hello DeepSight,

Yes, I've seen your persuasions and am thankful for excerpting that text for your argument. It still misses the essential points I raised in post #82; and that again is not taking us anywhere. In all that Arius could have argued for your sake, please how do you reconcile his affirmation of the Son being "PERFECT GOD" with yet his own controversion of making Him any less than "GOD"?

^^^ Viaro - you have not read my explanation - #83 on this thread?

InesQor:
Deep Sight:

Yes, Light is self-existent; but not so darkness. It is impossible for there to be complete darkness, speaking scientifically. It is only possible to have a highly reduced amount of light. Thus there could never have been a time of complete darkness (Satan's existentiality), AS WELL as a time of complete self-existent light (which would have dispelled the darkness). This is why I say that the concept of darkness was in existence, but darkness itself was not.

Please read this quoted above again and realize instantly that it is a wholesale concession that both darkness and light are self-existent, eternal and uncreated.

And since you state that Satan is the personification of darkness then you imply that Satan has always existed and is therefore uncreated.

We are going round in circles.

Please note that darkness is not the absence of light. Darkness is that which to an extent denies the influence of light in a location. There is no such thing as "darkness" in its essential form (without reference to the light it has denied).

Is there any such thing as “light” in its essential form without reference to the darkness which it is the reverse of?

Can either exist without reference to the other?

Can there exist a concept of “up” without the reverse and simultaneous existence of a concept of “down.?”

Does it make any sense to suggest that at some point in time, only “up” existed and “down” did not exist?

I hope you see what I am getting at – none of these can exist without the parallel and simultaneous existence of the reverse.

Light (visible light) is always present, and has always been present. It's just that our eyes don't take in enough light to see in "dark" places. So "complete darkness" would be the complete absence of light (impossible, since light is primeval). But darkness as we perceive it is better expressed as a "lack of light", to varying degrees.

If this is true then the direct implication is that Satan does not exist.

Because you defined him as the personification of Darkness – and you have now said that Darkness does not really exist.

You need to re-examine your propositions – they are contradictory.

MyJoe:
Hello viaro -

I am bringing in this because you said in an earlier post that your beliefs in this matter are based on the Bible. So I guess we can skip Arius a bit. My view is that -

The divinity of Christ has biblical anchor.

The deity of Christ? Depends on what you mean.

The Trinity - Christ co-equal, co-existent, or co-eternal with God? This is not well grounded on scripture. In fact, the scriptures contradict it. Which is why I wonder what you think of the following scriptures:

Is Jesus God, according to the Bible?
Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, [a] Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

But so are others:
Psalm 82:1,2,6 (New International Version)
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods":
2 "How long will you [a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

2 Corinthians 4:4 (New International Version)
4[b]The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers[/b], so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Genesis 33:9-11 (New International Version)
10 "No, please!" said Jacob. "If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably. 11 Please accept the present that was brought to you, for God has been gracious to me and I have all I need." And because Jacob insisted, Esau accepted it.

Is Jesus equal to God according to the Bible?
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (New International Version)
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28[b]When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him,[/b] so that God may be all in all.

Colossians 1:15-16 (New International Version)
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

John 14:28 (New International Version)
28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Brilliant MyJoe. Thanks for this.

It is instructive to note the difference between the "divinity" of christ and the "diety" of Christ.

Let me add that Arius went to great lengths to distinguish this.

Krayola, thank you so much for that.

Viaro - i have extracted the relevant text and i reproduce it below -

The initial milestone in the development of Christology in the post apostolic era was the first ecumenical council of the Church held in Nicea in 325 A.D.

This council was convened to counter the threat to Christian Faith posed by Arianism.

According to Arius and his followers, Jesus Christ, the divine Logos, was the pre-eminent creature rather than the eternal son of God. True Divinity, Arius argued, could not be subject to any limitations and certainly not to suffering and death. Hence Christ, while the unique revealer of God and our redeemer, could not be God with us. Although he is as much like God as a creature could be, he was not equal with God: he did not share in God’s being. “There was when he was not” said Arius. While the intent of Arius was to honor and exalt God above every creature, he could speak of divine transcendence only in the sense of being the opposite of everything created. For Arius it was inconceivable to speak of God as coming amongst us as one of us.

I hope you can see what i meant by the relevance of the arian heresy to the affirmation and development of doctrine. . . also note Arius' general views on this matter in refernce to the arguments i set forward in my last post.

Hello Viaro  -

I think this below should serve to clarify the web Arius was trying to untangle –

You may have seen it on the wiki page on the Arian Controversy; but perhaps you regarded it lightly  - please read it carefully and then see my comments below.

To address both issues pertaining the creation of Logos, or the Word and the creation of the prior in time.

(New International Version) John 1:1,2 - 1. In the beginning was the Word (Gr., Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (was a god [NWT]; “was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage [both German]). 2. He was with God in the beginning.

1st - The Word existed during an undefinable (in terms either traceable or current means regarding human science) but definite "beginning"
2nd - The Word was with God (denotes closeness or proximity)
3rd - The Word was God (indicates explicit divinity)
4th - The Word was with God (reiteration of 2nd) in the beginning (reiteration of the 1st)

Inferences: The Word had a definable beginning and associated with God.
Open ended issues: Scriptures note that The Word was God and was with God. One cannot be himself and be with himself.

This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father.”

Summary: "Logos" or the Word has a noted and definable beginning and is noted to associate with God, whereas God, as understood to be "God Almighty" (Exodus 6:3)(the aforementioned term being used exclusively to him and not to Jesus or the Holy Spirit), has neither a beginning nor a foreseeable end.

Conclusion: The Word had to have been created in the stream of time in order to have a beginning. Nothing in a logical sense can create itself so the only alternative means of manifestation existed by means of God as he was the only individual in existence before the Word, therefore by default, the Word had to have been created by God and would not be God in the sense that he is the Almighty God, but would not invalidate that The Word has a divine nature similar to, but less than that, of God.

My Comments –

1. Arius clearly was struggling with the fact that the son is said to be “begotten” and yet is said to be God.

2. It is undisputed that the bible repeatedly describes the son as “begotten.”

3. The natural, logical and undeniable inference of being “begotten” is that the one begat, clearly had a beginning.

4. God is well known not to have had a beginning.

5. Therefore Arius, a man steeped in the doctrines of Christ’s supposed deity and divinity could only have come to the conclusion that whilst Christ remains perfectly of the essence of divinity (“perfect God”) – he yet is not that Uncaused Cause that is the ultimate being. This doubtless at first glance may seem somewhat contradictory as you have pointed out: but that very contradiction I hope you realize serves to highlight one thing and one thing only: the absurdity and incongruity of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Read carefully the text I quoted from wiki above: particularly –

Summary: "Logos" or the Word has a noted and definable beginning and is noted to associate with God, whereas God, as understood to be "God Almighty" (Exodus 6:3)(the aforementioned term being used exclusively to him and not to Jesus or the Holy Spirit), has neither a beginning nor a foreseeable end.

. . . . the Word had to have been created by God and would not be God in the sense that he is the Almighty God, but would not invalidate that The Word has a divine nature similar to, but less than that, of God

I think the foregoing puts Arius’ dilemma in some context. We are compelled to take his words “Perefct God” in careful context of his other remarks, and I think the quoted above puts it in proper perspective; that by the words “perfect God” he was referring to Christ’s presumed Divinity – or exact reflection of the substance of the father.

Many such parallels are drawn in scripture. When Christ says “if ye have seen me, ye have seen the father” – this surely underscores the exact reflection of divine nature which Arius was struggling to put across whilst noting carefully that that did not make Christ the Uncaused Cause itself – given that he was begotten.

Perhaps if you had a son whose DNA perfectly matches yours, that son would be called “perfect viaro” – whilst a man like Arius would call him so, and yet carefully note that he is NOT Viaro.

Nevertheless all the foregoing still begs the question.

Because my question was – why was this controversy so important?

I believe the internal inconsistencies of the Trinity Dogma which Arius exposed made the controversy seminal.

And that is what I have been trying to point out from scratch: that if that boiling controversy was not resolved in favor of the trinity: the Church today would disdain the doctrine.

Whichever way we view the matter we cannot escape that which Arius highlighted –

1. That the Bible teaches the son to have been begotten

2. That being begotten implies having had a beginning

3. That the son thus had a beginning

4. Thus that the son cannot be said to be “Almighty God” - WHO NEVER HAD A BEGINNING.

The premises and conclusion in red font above ON THEIR OWN are absolutely unassailable and they give an ABSOLUTE death-blow to the idea of the Trinity; regardless of whether or not Arius called the son “Perfect God.”

That only shows the poor fellow was struggling to make sense of the nonsensical.

Viaro -

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. [size=16pt]We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.[/size]

Why is it that you refuse to read that which you yourself quote?  ?  ?

Can you not see the bolded? What does it suggest to you? ? ?

Viaro -

My driver has had a long hard day and i don't want to keep him waiting downstairs any longer so i have to leave the office now.

I will respond in detail later. But let me say just one thing -

What is this you are bandying about Arius believing that Christ was "perfect God"? ? ?

The same Arius referred to by wikipedia here - ?

Quote from wikipedia -

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".

Who in history has ever perceived "Perfect God" as having a beginnning - by reason of having been "begotten"? ? ? ?

viaro:
You mean. . . you. . you, of all people, are so completely confused about this? To be sure, the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings; nor was it during the time of Arius in the 3rd to 4th century that Christians knew about and affirmed the Deity of Christ. Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity does not therefore mean that prior to the 3rd century Christians had no clue about the Deity of God's Son!

I would like to presume in your favour that rather than being dishonest, you perhaps are simply not seeing things from the particular perspective I had in mind.

I am fairly certain that you did not hear me state at any point in time that the Arian Controversy had anything to do with “prophetic writings” or that the issue of the deity of Christ arose during the time of Arius? ? ? Please do follow your own advise and listen to what I am saying and not what I am not saying.

What I stated was clear:

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity

It is a source of irritation that I find myself consistently having to break down grammar for you. Moreso that I know very well that understanding of language should not be a problem for you except that you deliberately make it so.

The statement of mine above simply means –

- - -> - - -> That modern Christian doctrine regarding this matter has been influenced by the decisions taken at that gathering

- Which is an incontestable and obvious fact.

I did ask you what the source of the controversy was and why it was so important at the time. Rather than address the simple question you were busy calling me names: stating that I am a dunce, etc as is your wont. I feel that it has become rather sickening the extent to which you rabidly desire to fling vulgarities and insults my way at anything that I say – be it on a secular or objective matter of any kind.

Quite simply the reason that the controversy was so important was the fact that there was a lot within scripture to suggest that Christ perhaps was not to be equated with God and things had reached a head such that it became compelling for the Church to take a stand one way or the other on the hydra-headed monster that the issue that become.

In case you do not recognise it what this basically implies is that the deity of Christ was neither a certainty nor taken for granted – if it were, there would have been no reason to take the “controversy” with any degree of seriousness.

Now I am going to introduce to you one fact which I do not know if you are aware of: that pro-trinitarian verses were actually deliberately inserted into scripture where they previously were not in the original texts.

One example of this is 1 John 5 v 7 –

The King James Version states -

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

These words did not exist AT ALL in the original scripture! The discovery of older manuscripts has shown it to be a deliberate and later insertion!

Thus modern bible versions WITHOUT EXCEPTION have REMOVED these words!

What does this tell you?

That people throughout History have been so determined to manipulate scripture that outright additions have been made to scripture in a bid to foist authority for the paganistic doctrine of the Trinity.

The truth is that if there was already sufficient authority within the bible for the Trinity – THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR ANYBODY TO MAKE THAT DELIBERATE AND FRAUDULENT INSERTION. In this context you can appreciate the questions I put to you.

Thus you need to appreciate that such manipulations are evidence of the fact that not everything handed down by the Church can be relied upon: and it remains an incontestable fact that whatever was resolved at Nicea and subsequent Councils is what the Church would have accepted as standard doctrine.

Whatever the Church accepted as standard doctrine is what the branches of the Church that later sprang out also imbibed as the supposed correct interpretation of scripture regarding the matter of the Deity of Christ.

So think again brother, and address the issues please!

viaro:
You're a dunce! The Bible was not written at the Council of Nicea - and if anyone ought to have known that fact, you should!

The dates are not at issue Viaro – the content and interpretation are.

For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

Why did that heresy become important enough for the powers that be to convene a Diet targeted at addressing principally that heresy?

That is what you need to reflect on.

You cannot deny that the resolutions at the Council have largely shaped church doctrine up till this day in respect of this matter. For the influence of the Nicene Creed on literally all Christian sects existing today can scarcely be denied.

But I expect that you will deny it.

There are problems.

InesQor:
Satan is the personification of DARKNESS, which is a result of the principle of darkness (called sin). Sin (evil-doing) was a possibility because the principles of light (good) were established by Him (God) who is LIGHT and is self-existent.

Note that above you have stated -

the principles of light (good) were established by Him (God) who is LIGHT and is self-existent.

Note closely that you have stated that –

1. God is LIGHT
2. Light is self-existent.

Now consider this carefully. If something is self-existent then it has always existed.

So you have stated that Light is Self Existent. Thus it has always existed.

You yourself also stated that Darkness is the absence of Light.

Thus if Light has always existed: then the reverse (absence) has always existed; it could not be otherwise – for at any point that Light Exists, the reverse – darkness – exists also.

Thus it remains true that if Light is Self Existent, then so is darkness.

If Light is Eternal, then so is Darkness.

Neither creating the other – both simply being the natural reverse of the other given the principle of Duality.

Thus when you state that Satan is the darkness – then you accede that Satan is self-existent and has always existed.

I am surprised that you do not see that this helps solve the mystery of the existence of evil supposedly emanating from a “good” God.

viaro:
I used the example of the Hindu's 'cows are God'; since I don't understand what the informed Hindu might mean, I would not go about "disdaining" him/her on such things.

Out with the truth abeg! DO NOT LIE – IF ANYBODY TOLD YOU THAT HE THOUGHT A COW IS GOD YOU WOULD THINK THAT TO BE C.RAP.

Just as surely as I am entitled to regard your belief that a late Jewish Rabbi is the Creator God as . . .well, you know. . .B.S!!!

There are issues about the Christian faith that many Christians may not be able to communicate in words to your mind's apprehension.

Yep; I concede that it is EXTREMELY HARD to explain a belief that the man living next door is almighty God. . .

You should be able to respect your own limitations (as I'm always conscious of mine); and where you may not be able to grasp the understanding of others in their concept of GOD, you don't need to go about rabidly deriding them for what they believe on that question!

I deride no one: I deride dogma only.

Especially the dogma which seeks to get me to bow down to a Jewish Rabbi and call him almighty God . . .

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity. . .wake up and think for yourself!

The mystery of the Christian faith is beyond your grasp

That Cows or Guru Maharaji are God is also beyond my grasp!

What is wrong with you David? Having trouble accepting me as your Lord and personal Saviour? ? ?

Ah well, a prophet is always derided in his hometown.

This must explain why the Jews do not accept Christ but peeps all the way in Africa do!

This must also explain why you guys are rejecting me as your personal lord and saviour.

InesQor:
Satan was created by God, and he was not always evil.

In light of your earlier remarks, I find this very very strange indeed.

You said, and I quote –

You have said that the principles of good and evil are self-existent and eternal like principles of light and darkness, and this indicates the position here as well. Whatever does not contribute to illumination is an element of darkness, and whatever does not increase darkness is an element of illumination. Darkness would be the adversary of light in the that case.

Which to my mind is a firm acceptance of the self-existence of both Light and Darkness.

You went further to state –

Satan, then, would be the personification of that force that moves against the harmonious purpose of the prime mover.

Which gives that Satan is the very personification of Darkness: something that is self existent – and thus that Satan is Self Existent.

Light and Darkness are not self-existent. Rather, the principles of light and darkness are self-existent. The principle of light establishes the principle of darkness as the absence of the influence of light.

I am at odds with your blurry distinction between “the principle of light” and “the light.” Can you shed light on this: no pun intended.

Because I verily am given to believe that the distinction needn’t be made; the principle of light bearing every rationale of the self-existence of the Light. In other words, we can only refer to The Light in terms of the Principle of Light.

If this is the case I should be correct to state that God is HIMSELF the eternal primordial Living Light.

And if God has always existed; then going by your summation: darkness has always existed, because it is simply all things that are not the light. It thus emerges forcefully that if Satan is as you say – “the personification of darkness” – then Satan has always existed.

Again, this reasoning leads to the same inescapable point that Satan was not created by God; but that Satan (darkness) is the natural reverse of God (Light).
I see it as the principle of duality which is inescapable.

I am certain that you can see reason with this; and if you can; then it firmly contradicts your bible stories about God creating Lucifer, war in heaven, a fall from heaven, etcetera: which are at best unverifiable celestial myths.

For me the principle of Duality is enough to ground the self-existent Light and the self-existent darkness.