I would like to hear your opinion on how do you differentiate between Deism and Omnism? To me they are in a sense two different names for the same belief. Where the Omnists are the honest ones and Deists are not quite honest about the origin their religion. Thoughts
My first thought is neither belong or have anything to do with an 'agnostic and athiest' forum... Second, omnists believe in ?everything? That doesn't even make sense to me let alone warrant being called "honest".
^that Omnists apparently believe in, or at least legitimize all religious beliefs. Even Athiesm. Which seems contradicting and make believe to me. Diests usually believe in the Christian God, but outside of organized religion. We basically pick a religion but follow it on our own terms.
I guess I'm an Omnist and didn't even realize it. Does it have to be exclusive of Christianity? I don't believe in all religious beliefs, and as a Christian, I think Jesus is the prophet who speaks most clearly to me and whom I accept as my savior. I take fellowship mostly with Christians. But I certainly regard the world religions as legitimate if sincere. In the second century, Saint Justin Martyr argued that even atheists and pagans who hold their beliefs sincerely through rational reflection are essentially Christians. God conferred the title of Messiah on Cyrus the Great, who was a devout Zoroastrian. The Pope recognizes that sincere Muslims can get to heaven. I've found that Buddhist, Hindu, and even Toltec spiritual beliefs can strengthen my own Christian faith. So what's the problem? As for the difference with Deism, deism implies a laid back God, who sets the multiverse in motion and lets nature take its course. Omnism is more inclusive in allowing for a variety of different concepts of God. I have no empirical basis for deciding whether the Theist, Deist, Pantheist or Panentheist views are correct. I've been heavily influenced by process theology, which tends to be Panentheist (not a misspelling).