# Will the real Thomas Jefferson please stand up?



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

I started this thread in an attempt to prevent another one from getting hi-jacked.  I could not let the following statement stand unchallenged, when we do it becomes truth and this one definitely is not.

"Jefferson was a self proclaimed enlightened diest. He did not hold religious organizations in high esteem. He believed that belief (like madison) was personal. Based on all I have read most christians today would not consider him a christian. He believed in apathetic god who did not get invovled with the affairs of men."

From any of Thomas Jefferson’s writings throughout his life it is clear he was definitely not a deist, that would be one who believes in an impersonal god uninvolved with mankind, one who does not hear prayer, and it would therefore be of no use.

That is why Thomas Jefferson wrote, “He who answers prayer, and intervenes in the affairs of mankind and before Whom every individual would stand to be judged.”


The last thing that revisionist historians would want you know is that Thomas Jefferson promoted religion in general and Christianity particularly.  He regularly experessed his liking to the teachings of Jesus and often referenced the Bible in his personal and public writings.  

The Bible that he "supposedly authored" was so that various Indian tribes could be inculcated in the basic moral teaching of Jesus without becoming bogged down in the dogma of various denominations, not because he any problems with Jesus.  There was also a similar version printed for new members of congress so they would have the foundation for laws the wrote and the decisions they made.


The next thing we know he will be accused of fathering illegitimate children with a young mulatto.

History must come from source documents.  In this case Jefferson's own writing.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2012)

Interesting, thanks for posting MM.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

Sources please.


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Sources please.



In this case Jefferson's own writing.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2012)

Madman said:


> That is why Thomas Jefferson wrote, “He who answers prayer, and intervenes in the affairs of mankind and before Whom every individual would stand to be judged.”
> 
> ...
> 
> History must come from source documents.  In this case Jefferson's own writing.



What is the source document for that quote?


----------



## pstrahin (May 8, 2012)

I appreciate your post.  The other day when I read that Jefferson wrote his own bible and the remarks that encompassed that statement,  I was taken back.  Thru the years, I have learned to verify from a reliable source before I believe.  I am a Christian and I would like to read more about Jefferson.  Where did you find the information about him?


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

So can a man that rejects christs divinity be a christian?



> He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ



http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2012)

I think I recall that he was Unitarian and followed the writings of a man named Joseph Priestly. I could be confusing him with someone else. He believed that the scriptures were doctored. He took out all the miracles


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> What is the source document for that quote?



Not that you really care but here it is.


_Thomas Jefferson's Abridgement of the Words of Jesus of Nazareth._


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

Madman said:


> In this case Jefferson's own writing.



Which ones he's got a few.  Most of the sources I find confirm he was a Unitatrian/diest.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

I guess if T.J. was a Christian, so am I.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."[15]


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

pstrahin said:


> I appreciate your post.  The other day when I read that Jefferson wrote his own bible and the remarks that encompassed that statement,  I was taken back.  Thru the years, I have learned to verify from a reliable source before I believe.  I am a Christian and I would like to read more about Jefferson.  Where did you find the information about him?



As bishop claimed Thomas Jefferson is one of my heros.  There are many publications that have been researched and have actual writings from thomas Jefferson.

I'll have to look up some when I get home.  Drop me a PM and I'll send you a list.


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Which ones he's got a few.  Most of the sources I find confirm he was a Unitatrian/diest.



What are your sources?  Mr. Jefferson believed the best way to understand someone was to read his own writings.

That is what I try to do.

Most "history" today comes via Academic Collectivism, which is the death of true history.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

I just did about ten different searches, all confirming what I have found. T.J. was a unititarian/diest,  who did not believe in the divinity of christ.  

So I will ask agian:  Do you have to believe in the divinity of christ to be a christian?


----------



## pstrahin (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So I will ask agian:  Do you have to believe in the divinity of christ to be a christian?



I know that you are calling out Madman because of his OP.  But, the answer is yes.


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> 1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."[15]




I see no source document for your above quotation.  I would bet you cut and pasted from the internet.  Most likely from an agnostic site trying to prove a point.

I believe you cut and paste without context.  I would suggest you read the letter in its entirity to better understand the topic it is wonderful discourse, especially if you read all the correspondence.

Yes and John Quincy Adams, himself an evangelical Christian, attended a Unitarian church in DC.  But do not confuse present day Unitarianism with that which was practiced 200 years ago.  (That is called by some _modernism_, and also very destructive to history)

Adams claimed to have attended the Unitarian church  because of the minister's "moral discourses were always good and I listened to them with pleasure, however I do not subscribe to many of his doctrines, particularly not the fundamental one of his Unitarian Creed." _Memiors of John Quincy Adams_


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I just did about ten different searches, all confirming what I have found.



Ahh the internet!  The arbiter, the supreme court, the all knowing, keeper of truth!!!!

With that at everyone's disposal why should we read source documents?


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

same website dedicated to Jefferson. It has no religious affiliation.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

Madman said:


> Ahh the internet!  The arbiter, the supreme court, the all knowing, keeper of truth!!!!
> 
> With that at everyone's disposal why should we read source documents?



They have the source documents.  

Rule #1

When you are in an inferior position attack the messenger.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

Yep, just read the whole letter to adams.  I understood it's context to be decidingly anti-calvinist, and again affirming jefferson rejection of the divinity of christ.  The quote above is in context.


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> They have the source documents.



I have the source documents.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

Here's more cut and paste from a believers website.



> [Interviewer:] Let's go through some of [the Founding Fathers]... Thomas Jefferson?
> 
> [Jon Butler:] Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, "The Jefferson Bible." But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
> 
> ...


http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

Madman said:


> I have the source documents.



They are not hard to find.  But the point remains, no matter how hard you try, Jefferson rejected the divinity of christ.  So how could he be a Christian?


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> 1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."[15]


How exactly is this "anti-Christian"?

Who exactly is TJ talking about when he says "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are *those calling themselves *the expositors of them"?


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How exactly is this "anti-Christian"?
> 
> Who exactly is TJ talking about when he says "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are *those calling themselves *the expositors of them"?



Never said anti-christian.  But you are missing the important part of the quote.



> And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> They are not hard to find.  But the point remains, no matter how hard you try, Jefferson rejected the divinity of christ.  So how could he be a Christian?



I have VOLUMES of letters and writings by Thomas Jefferson that he penned over a lifetime.  You have ONE quote from a letter and you are going to suppose the nature of his religious frame of mind?

If I thought you were a true admirer of Thomas Jefferson I would enjoy sharing some info with you from his most personal writings, but the truth is you only wish to use him as a club in an attempt to disprove the Christian foundation of this nation.

Unfortunately I do not keep my Jefferson books at work and I know how important source documents are to you so I will have to wait to provide much further documentation.

I am ALWAYS amazed at revisionist history.


----------



## stringmusic (May 8, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Never said anti-christian.  But you are missing the important part of the quote.


Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but right after he says.....


			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.


He say's...


			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will *do away all this artificial scaffolding*, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.



Indicating that as long as we have expositors of Jesus' writings, whom Jefferson does not indicate, who are perverting Jesus' words for a "structure of a system", Christs words will end up being " classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"

Mr. Jefferson seems to indicate in this small piece, at least to me, that people are perverting the words of Jesus, and he hopes that America will restore Jesus' genuine doctrines. Which I'm assuming he means the Bible.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2012)

Madman said:


> Not that you really care but here it is.
> 
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson's Abridgement of the Words of Jesus of Nazareth._



Sorry but can you be more specific? I have this book in both hard copy and pdf. A pdf search turns up nothing. You would think that quote would be trotted out by Christians all the time as others are and yet a Google search for that quote turns up no primary source, in fact this thread is the top result.

I did find the exact same wording in a book "The Jefferson Lies:Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson" but it isn't written as a quote as far as I can tell(this is on Google Books). A few pages further down the author cites "Academic Collectivism" which I see you have also made reference to in this thread. Is this your source?

Two more paragraphs down the author states "This is why 2 Corinthians 2:11 reminds us that if we can identify Satan's traps then he won't have an advantage over us." Not the sort of statement one would expect from a historian. So I look up the author because I've never heard of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28author%29



> David Barton (born 1954) is an American evangelical Christian minister,[1] conservative activist, and author. He founded WallBuilders, a Texas-based organization which advocates the view that U.S. constitutional separation of church and state is a myth.[2][3] Barton is the former co-chair of the Republican Party of Texas.
> 
> Barton collects early American documents, and his official biography describes him as "an expert in historical and constitutional issues".[4] Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods".[5][6][7][8] According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible." [9]
> 
> A 2005 Time magazine article entitled "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals" called Barton "a major voice in the debate over church-state separation" who, despite the fact that "many historians dismiss his thinking... [is] a hero to millions—including some powerful politicians."[10] He has been described as a Christian nationalist and "one of the foremost Christian revisionist historians"; much of his work is devoted to advancing the idea, based upon research that many historians describe as flawed,[9] that the United States was founded as an explicitly Christian nation.[11] Barton has appeared on television and radio programs, including those of former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck, who has praised Barton as "the Library of Congress in shoes".





> In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders.[51] This drew criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings".[52] WallBuilders responded to its critics by saying that Barton followed "common practice in the academic community" in citing secondary sources, and that in publishing "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton's intent was to raise the academic bar in historical debates pertinent to public policy.[51]



What is your source for that quote? Did you get it from David Barton? Or a primary source? If a primary source please be specific as I am interested in verifying it for myself and reading it in full context.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

Madman said:


> I have VOLUMES of letters and writings by Thomas Jefferson that he penned over a lifetime.  You have ONE quote from a letter and you are going to suppose the nature of his religious frame of mind?
> 
> If I thought you were a true admirer of Thomas Jefferson I would enjoy sharing some info with you from his most personal writings, but the truth is you only wish to use him as a club in an attempt to disprove the Christian foundation of this nation.
> 
> ...



I'm always amazed at the rationalization that continues in the face of the obvious.   This is the age of information.  If the information was out there that proves me wrong and all the of people who agree with me, then it would be easily available to both of us, in seconds.  I understand your hostility tward the net.  Its way to easy to find your position lacks validation, becuase of it.  The link I provided is the website that is dedicated to jefferson.  The other is a believers website.  Both confirm the postulation that Jefferson did not accept the divinity of christ.  His own quote seems to verify that position.  

I have no problems admitting I'm wrong, but show me.  Something. Anything. I'll take an internet site that confirms  T.J. beleive in the Christ as a God Son.


----------



## TheBishop (May 8, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but right after he says.....
> 
> He say's...
> 
> ...



What he is saying string is that the virgin birth is a fable, and that those who water down jesus words with mysticism, degrade the message.  His book is a compilation of the moral teaching of jesus, which he believed and held in high esteem.  He removed the miracles and resurection, which he did not believe.


----------



## Madman (May 8, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> What is your source for that quote? Did you get it from David Barton? Or a primary source? If a primary source please be specific as I am interested in verifying it for myself and reading it in full context.



No but I do have some David Barton books.  He is a big opponent of what he calls Academic collectivism (One academic looking at another as a source) of which I am in agreement.

I'll dig out the book tonight and find chapter and verse.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 9, 2012)

Can I ask how we can take much of anything that TJ wrote to be clear indication of his true feelings? Don't politicians say whatever they need to fit their party and get votes?


----------



## Madman (May 9, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Don't politicians say whatever they need to fit their party and get votes?



Pretty much.  Politics is a strange profession for men and women trying to maintain their integrety.  I would use Jefferson's letter to the Barbary Pirates as an example.

Atlas,

I cannot find that quote anywhere but on my "List".  I must have heard it or pulled it from secondary sources and that is not good.

I even "googled" it to no avail, I sincerely thank you for bringing it up.  Red faced I remove it from my list.

I have found fragments of conversations and speaches where Jefferson uses language refering to an "active" god.

One is at the end of his second inauguration address.

"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

Bishop,

I was too lazy to type that so I did cut and paste, however, I also checked it against a hard copy.


----------



## TheBishop (May 9, 2012)

Madman said:


> One is at the end of his second inauguration address.
> 
> "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."
> 
> ...



Good quote.  But you have still failed to address the issue at hand.  Is Jefferson a Christian?  I don't need hard copies to verify what I already know.  I KNOW Jefferson did not acknowledge the divinity of christ.  As a matter of fact he actively spoke agianst it.  He also denied the bible you hold and revere, as the inerrant word of god.  So much so, he defaced it to make his version.  He purposesly took out the things that could not be explained by science and logic.  


Go up a few forums, pose this question, and see the responses you get:

Could a man that actively denies the divinity of christ, edits the bible to suit his purpose,including denying the resurection,  then presents it as the true messenge of Jesus the human, be called a chrisitian?


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Good quote.  But you have still failed to address the issue at hand.  Is Jefferson a Christian?  I don't need hard copies to verify what I already know.  I KNOW Jefferson did not acknowledge the divinity of christ.  As a matter of fact he actively spoke agianst it.  He also denied the bible you hold and revere, as the inerrant word of god.  So much so, he defaced it to make his version.  He purposesly took out the things that could not be explained by science and logic.
> 
> 
> Go up a few forums, pose this question, and see the responses you get:
> ...



There's no way he could bring it up "up there".  Five people would get banned before it got locked down.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 9, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Could a man that actively denies the divinity of christ, edits the bible to suit his purpose,including denying the resurection,  then presents it as the true messenge of Jesus the human, be called a chrisitian?


Called a Christian? Yes, but the term "Christian" and the way it is used today, includes just about anybody.

At the time he was actively espousing those things, it would appear that he was reprobate. He may not have died in that condition.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Called a Christian? Yes, but the term "Christian" and the way it is used today, includes just about anybody.
> 
> At the time he was actively espousing those things, it would appear that he was reprobate. He may not have died in that condition.



Not if wasn't meant to be, right?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2012)

Yes, he was a Christian. Different sects of those claiming to be Christians have no right to label anyone as nonchristian over interpretation. His distinction, if I understand him is that he considers the scriptures embellished, a distraction to the attraction of the gospel.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Not if wasn't meant to be, right?


I have no way of knowing his eternal condition when he died.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I have no way of knowing his eternal condition when he died.



But you're sure someone knew.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 9, 2012)

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man, and for me there is no doubt, he was a Deist. He seems to have been brilliant in regards to almost all things natural. But in my opinion, he was ignorant of all things spiritual. That does not prevent me from having respect for the man. I am unsure as to why "Christians" want to claim him unless it is to some how boaster themselves.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2012)

Madman said:


> Atlas,
> 
> I cannot find that quote anywhere but on my "List".  I must have heard it or pulled it from secondary sources and that is not good.
> 
> ...



Ok thanks. I appreciate your honesty. 

I came across the following and I think it pretty well sums up the question.

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



> In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.[45][46] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington





> For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However, one unpublished Ph.D. dissertation has described Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[54] The first-found usage of the term "theistic rationalist" is in the year 1856.[55] In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated that he "tremble[d]" at the thought that "God is just," and he warned of eventual "supernatural influence" to abolish the scourge of slavery.


----------



## Asath (May 10, 2012)

Actual, selected quotes from Thomas Jefferson (annotated) –

“The people, to whom all authority belongs . . .”
	(from a letter to Spencer Roane, June 27, 1821.)

“What is it men cannot be made to believe!”
	(from a letter to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786.)

“The manners of every nation are the standard of orthodoxy within itself.  But these standards being arbitrary, reasonable people in all allow free toleration for the manners, as for the religions, of others.”
	(from a letter to Jean Baptiste Say, March 2, 1815.)

“The dead have no rights.  They are nothing; and nothing cannot own something.”
	(from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.)

“Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people.  Let our countrymen know . . . that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
	(from a letter to George Wythe, August 13, 1786.)

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
	(from a letter to Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816.)

“We believed . . . that man was a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice . . . We believed that . . . wisdom and virtue were not hereditary.”
(discussing the views of the majority of the delegates to the Constitutional                                                         Convention of 1787, in a letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823.)


“No man has the right to abandon the care of his salvation to another.”
	(“Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury,” 1776.)

“ I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives . . . It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.  By the same test the world must judge me.  But this does not satisfy the priesthood.  They MUST have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities.  My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest.  The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.”
	(from a letter to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816.)

(Note: Jefferson died in 1826.)


----------



## TheBishop (May 10, 2012)

45 posts and nothing to provide evidence that my statement is false.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 10, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> 45 posts and nothing to provide evidence that my statement is false.



I do not disagree with your statement but I am curious as to why it appears to create angst with others.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 10, 2012)

Is Thomas Jefferson the God of atheists?


----------



## ambush80 (May 10, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Is Thomas Jefferson the God of atheists?



Forgive hobbs.  He knows not what he says.


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Forgive hobbs.  He knows not what he says.



clearly


----------



## hobbs27 (May 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Forgive hobbs.  He knows not what he says.



I am forgiven! Thanks for your concern though.


----------



## ambush80 (May 11, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I am forgiven! Thanks for your concern though.




Now go see the definition of atheist and sin no more.


----------



## TheBishop (May 12, 2012)

2 pages and 51 posts still nothing that would indicate that jefferson was anything other than a diest.


----------



## Four (May 15, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Is Thomas Jefferson the God of atheists?



Can you draw a square circle?


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2012)

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=690311

So if T.J. isnt a diest or a Christian what is he?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 20, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=690311
> 
> So if T.J. isnt a diest or a Christian what is he?



I'm still trying to figure out what the big problem is if he was a deist.  Why does that matter so much to certain people that they cling to the opposite notion?


----------



## ZFrog (May 21, 2012)

Jefferson was religious, but he understood the need for separation of church and state. Like most of the founding fathers. 

A fact conservatives would argue, of course.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 10, 2012)

Been reading up on Jefferson since we share some of the same beliefs. As always, his critics liked to misrepresent him. For example, someone quoted him as saying something negative against Jesus. But further investigation, we find out that he was contrasting the trinitarian Jesus as being incorrect. Not that he believed what he said, he was merely bringing to attention how it conflicted. So the misrepresentation was to imply that he held that belief. This is typical for religious opposition. Jefferson fought for seperation of church and state. Part of what makes this a great country


----------



## Madman (Jun 25, 2012)

Noun	1.	deist - a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it

At the end of his second inaugural address Jefferson writes:

"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

If he claims God is active in creation then that removes him from the deist camp.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 25, 2012)

O.k.  Madman one quote and it shreds all the historical references that the rest of us have.  

You say he wasn't a diest, and he darn sure wasn't a christian (atleast in the self righteous majority's definition of the word in these parts) so what was he?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2012)

He was also a politician and had to appeal to the masses. if you look at his writings you will find contradictory accounts about his beliefs. I have found more accounts that support Jefferson as a Deist in his personal writings and less of a Deist when he is addressing the public.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 26, 2012)

Madman your terrible at this calling people out thing.  With all your "source documents" that you claim to have, you can only provide ONE quote, twice in the same thread I might add, that only slightly hints Jefferson believed in an active god.   You have had almost 2 months to do just a little homework from all the stuff you claim to have, and yet you provide nothing.  Thing that make you go HMMMMMM....

I will ask again madman and put it in bold since you falied to reply, and since this post was calling me out specifically.


*If he wasn't a diest, and he wasn't a christian what was he?*


----------



## Madman (Jun 28, 2012)

Bishop you claimed he was a diest.   I have not seen one example that he WAS a diest I don't believe he was, based on that quote and others, T.J. writes about an "ACTIVE GOD".  Is it so terrible if he did believe in an ACTIVE GOD?

You are the one stuck on Christian. 

I also don't believe he would fall into the catagory of what is generally called a "christian" today.

It is no skin off my nose one way or another, I believe he was a theist,  someone who believes in God but struggles with how that God "operates".

I am not trying to prove anything, the man has been dead for 150+ years.   

I just think it interesting that a person (you) can show so much vitriol for Christianity and yet claim to seek the truth.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 28, 2012)

Madman said:


> Bishop you claimed he was a diest.   I have not seen one example that he WAS a diest I don't believe he was, based on that quote and others, T.J. writes about an "ACTIVE GOD".  Is it so terrible if he did believe in an ACTIVE GOD?
> No it actually isn't I could care less about his religious views (as he would have liked) than his views on liberty and justice.
> 
> You are the one stuck on Christian.
> ...



There is no truth in christianity, only belief. Those that claim it's truth, it exclusivity, and its superiority is the reason for my contempt.  I do everything in my persuasive powers to turn people away from christianity, as it is portrayed today, and by most of those who claim it here .  I believe T.J. would do the same.  It is positively revolting.


----------



## Madman (Jun 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> There is no truth in christianity, only belief. Those that claim it's truth, it exclusivity, and its superiority is the reason for my contempt.  I do everything in my persuasive powers to turn people away from christianity, as it is portrayed today, and by most of those who claim it here .  I believe T.J. would do the same.  It is positively revolting.



Thanks.  That is what I thought, there is no desire, on your part, to search the writings of Jefferson, or anyone else for that matter, for truth, only to attack that, which for some reason, offends you.  

How ironic you chose religion as bases of contempt.  Perhaps the superior feelings of Auburn fans over ‘Bama fans brings out the same feelings of disgust, or those who declare the superiority of Remington  over Springfield, but I doubt it.

I asked about Jefferson and you responded with nothing more than a diatribe against one who has never offered you anything but good.

Amazing.  It just keep getting better.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 28, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> There is no truth in christianity, only belief. Those that claim it's truth, it exclusivity, and its superiority is the reason for my contempt.  I do everything in my persuasive powers to turn people away from christianity, as it is portrayed today, and by most of those who claim it here .  I believe T.J. would do the same.  It is positively revolting.


Hello Bishop, I ponder over things.Wondered if you might give more detail. This is my mindset. It hit me like a ton of brick this week when the thought crossed my mind that it will not be long until I'm 50. I see myself as young. I'm 46, and don't feel old. But it hit me that everyone else sees me as old. Your comment, "it is positively revolting", I wonder if this is all Christians, the majority, or the belief itself, that man was sacrificed, or that God wanted blood sacrifice, all the above? I'm pondering over how the world see's me. This might make an interesting thread. I would not be offended. I can't remember who it was, one of the vocal athiest who frequent here, I remember once while I was debating with a legalistic crowd. He sent me a PM. Something like, "I like you, but you are as crazy as they are". I love the brutal honesty. I still grin when I think of that.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 29, 2012)

Madman said:


> Thanks.  That is what I thought, there is no desire, on your part, to search the writings of Jefferson, or anyone else for that matter, for truth, only to attack that, which for some reason, offends you.
> 
> How ironic you chose religion as bases of contempt.  Perhaps the superior feelings of Auburn fans over ‘Bama fans brings out the same feelings of disgust, or those who declare the superiority of Remington  over Springfield, but I doubt it.
> 
> ...



You are incredulous.  I answered your question on Jefferson.  It does not matter, it should not matter, and one religous views.  But people like you make it an issue, determining the value of a person based on what they believe.  It's disgusting.   

What are you talking about "offered good to me", no body offered me anything.  If you talking about those who preach, they have offered nothing but hollow propaganda.  That you buy hook, line, and sinker. Not me I want something more substantial.  Something that I don't have to rationalize away every contradiction.

You are the one that started this attack, how very christian of you. You claim something I said was false yet all the research, all the historical references, scholars, historians, and the like AGREE WITH ME. That is were I get my information from. But you think they are all wrong and have yet to produce anything but one quote, one. Good job on your thorough research.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 29, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Bishop, I ponder over things.Wondered if you might give more detail. This is my mindset. It hit me like a ton of brick this week when the thought crossed my mind that it will not be long until I'm 50. I see myself as young. I'm 46, and don't feel old. But it hit me that everyone else sees me as old. Your comment, "it is positively revolting", I wonder if this is all Christians, the majority, or the belief itself, that man was sacrificed, or that God wanted blood sacrifice, all the above? I'm pondering over how the world see's me. This might make an interesting thread. I would not be offended. I can't remember who it was, one of the vocal athiest who frequent here, I remember once while I was debating with a legalistic crowd. He sent me a PM. Something like, "I like you, but you are as crazy as they are". I love the brutal honesty. I still grin when I think of that.



Of course it's not all christians.  You in your writings have acknowledged the flaws,  I have seen you do so.  I have also seen you attacked by the ones I am talking about.  Those are the ones that I hold in contempt.  The self righteous to the point of ignorance.  The ones that are scared to see the truth for what it really is.  Some even have the power in these forums to punish those who disagree, and will do so, just becuase they disagree.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 29, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Of course it's not all christians.  You in your writings have acknowledged the flaws,  I have seen you do so.  I have also seen you attacked by the ones I am talking about.  Those are the ones that I hold in contempt.  The self righteous to the point of ignorance.  The ones that are scared to see the truth for what it really is.  Some even have the power in these forums to punish those who disagree, and will do so, just becuase they disagree.


I was pondering over the whole aspect. Blood sacrifice is offensive, God accepting payment of sin by an innocent party. The many offensive things in the scriptures such as killing of women and children, proving it not to be a military issue. The burn in he11 belief held by most. The assumption of good people as sinners. All this and more, I can completly understand how offensive it is. In our mind, we don't see it. For example, a friend that I know is a nonbeliever. I asked him about his beliefs once. He was very open about it. I thought it might spur him to ask what I believe, but it did not, so I did not go any farther. My mindset is that if he wants to know, I will be glad to tell him. But I'm very careful not to try and forcefeed anyone. Anyway, it crossed my mind that if he did except the Christian faith, that he would be shutting the door on the hope that his deceased father is in a better place. That would be a hard sell seeing how him and his father shared the same belief. Alot of people, non Christian, have the hope of "a better place". Jesus as "the only way" is not accepted by everybody. I'm just rambling now, I should stop. I ponder over stuff like this. In my mind, the gospel should "be attractive", yet, it's not. Only to those who believe it.


----------



## Madman (Jun 29, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You are incredulous.  I answered your question on Jefferson.  It does not matter, it should not matter, and one religous views.  But people like you make it an issue, determining the value of a person based on what they believe.  It's disgusting.
> 
> What are you talking about "offered good to me", no body offered me anything.  If you talking about those who preach, they have offered nothing but hollow propaganda.  That you buy hook, line, and sinker. Not me I want something more substantial.  Something that I don't have to rationalize away every contradiction.
> 
> You are the one that started this attack, how very christian of you. You claim something I said was false yet all the research, all the historical references, scholars, historians, and the like AGREE WITH ME. That is were I get my information from. But you think they are all wrong and have yet to produce anything but one quote, one. Good job on your thorough research.



I am truely sorry you see any of my comments as an attack.  I thought this was a topic we could honestly discuss but much like other topics it has become about proving a point.  As I said, from many of his letters I do not see the diest in him but I also do not see the Christian,  but just as important he was surveyor, a scientist, a mathematician, he had a legal mind, and was eloquent in writing. 

I am sorry this forum is not ALL consuming.  I have a family and a business, I only come here on occassion, as in the past two months.  I have not spent every waking minute searching the web for proof or quotes.  Proof texting is very popular in the religious community, it appears to be the same in the agnostic community as well, and I do not care for it very much.  I believe you can read a letter or two in context and get an idea about a person's beliefs.
I do not care what some half hearted historian with an agenda has to say about him I care what he says about himself.


I believe I could post letter after letter and it would make no difference.  For some people it takes too much effort to read the original and form an idea when all you have to do is "google" someone elses thoughts then cut and paste them. 

You stated he was a hero or somthing to that so I figured it would be a place to start.

The only attack I have seen comes in your remarks about being disgusted by Christians.  

I closing I will say this.  Your remark "But people like you make it an issue, determining the value of a person based on what they believe.  It's disgusting."    That remark is discusting.  I would recommend you remain silent on issues you absolutly nothing about.  I value EVERYONE!  Even you!  You have value to me because I believe that you have value to God.

I come through forum on occasion to see what other people think, learn something and perhaps offer some insight.

I have come to learn that some only come here looking to be offended and argue.


----------



## Asath (Jul 3, 2012)

Wow.  I thought that only sisters and wives argued in circular forms like that.

I live and I learn . . . 

“I have not spent every waking minute searching the web for proof or quotes. . . . I believe you can read a letter or two in context and get an idea . . . I do not care what some half hearted historian with an agenda has to say . . . I believe I could post letter after letter and it would make no difference . . . For some people it takes too much effort to read the original and form an idea . . . “

You can’t buy this:  translation: “(I didn’t bother because I’m busy), (Ten seconds worth of learning is enough to inform ME), (Every expert OTHER than ME is beneath my notice), (Y’all are too dumb to see how RIGHT I am, no matter if I learn anything or not), (And, redux – let us do this one verbatim: “For some people it takes too much effort to read the original and form an idea . . . “) . . . leading to the implied conclusion:  (Therefore I am right.)

Can we encourage the management to start an Archive here?  Kind of a final resting place for presumed human enlightenment and actually awful logic, which, once killed, continues to resurrect itself in a truly impressively religious fashion?

I propose that they call it the Zombie Graveyard, where bad thoughts never truly die, but keep on stalking us, from beyond the grave.


----------



## Madman (Jul 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “I have not spent every waking minute searching the web for proof or quotes. . . . I believe you can read a letter or two in context and get an idea . . . I do not care what some half hearted historian with an agenda has to say . . . I believe I could post letter after letter and it would make no difference . . . For some people it takes too much effort to read the original and form an idea . . . “
> 
> You can’t buy this:  translation: “(I didn’t bother because I’m busy), (Ten seconds worth of learning is enough to inform ME), (Every expert OTHER than ME is beneath my notice), (Y’all are too dumb to see how RIGHT I am, no matter if I learn anything or not), (And, redux – let us do this one verbatim: “For some people it takes too much effort to read the original and form an idea . . . “) . . . leading to the implied conclusion:  (Therefore I am right.)



If you would bother to read more of the banter between bishop and me you would better understand the conversation.  Bishop pretty much implied I had two months to find other quotes but was unable too.  Let me ask you, how many cut and paste quotes will it take for you to admit that T.J. believed in a god?  

My response was "I have other things to do".  To be specific, two trips out of the country and a son who has been hospitalized for a week after major chest surgery.  I understand that you have nothing better to do but I do and if you think you or this forum are more important than my son then think much too highly of yourself, which from your past posts is evident.  

That explains the agnostic bent you have, which translates "I answer to no one, I am smarter and know better than anyone or anything". 

If I were to supply dozens of quotes, in total context, it would make no difference, which is why I stopped.

You can call them experts all you want but everyone has an agenda.  Take the "expert" who made the claim T.J. had a child by a young slave.  It stayed on page one and at the top of the headlines for weeks until the heat was lifted from Bill Clinton for his trist with Monica.  When other "experts" were brought out and proved this was a fraud the retraction appeared on page 5.

This could go on forever!!   Perhaps if you could take the time to explain how any of the quotes you cut from some "quote page" on the web show that T.J. was a diest I would listen to your argument, I would take you more seriously on this topic, but such cut and paste is for first grade book reports.  You have no idea what the quotes you posted pertained too.

What did T.J. mean when he penned: “ I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives . . . It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They MUST have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.”

Did you take time to actually read the letter?  I didn't think so.

Your attempt is no different than the Bill Clinton example, when someone wants to make their position acceptable they attempt to do it by destroying someone that is looked up too.

As I stated, I could not care less if T.J. was a diest, a Christian, a Jew, or an agnostic, Check the OP again. 

If you will notice I finally got tired of the banter, and stated I have never believed T.J. was a Christian, but he did believe in a creator, one that is active in His creation, therefore he could not be a diest.  A theoist maybe but you do not have the integrity to admit he was a man with spiritual beliefs.  

Stop relying on cut and paste.  Buy a book.


----------



## Asath (Jul 8, 2012)

Got plenty of books, thanks.  But the interest in niggling distinctions between deism (belief in god, with rejection of supernatural revelation), and theism (belief in god without rejection of revelation), ends up amounting to zero.  A deist does not, as you state, fail to believe that a god was actively involved in his creation, so there is no ‘therefore’ to be derived.  The difference lies solely in the ‘belief’ in revelation, which, at least in this forum is equally irrelevant as a distinction, since neither position demonstrates anything other than a need to argue with each other.  We reject both positions out of hand, so making subtle distinctions like that here is little more than arguing about how big the unicorn’s horn actually is.  Have fun with that, but leave us out of it.   

Whatever political pandering to a crowd overwhelmingly composed of believers in a god that had to occur in order to gain political power clearly occurred.  Politics, as you know, takes its cues from religion, which predates it and is the role model – the most convincing liar wins, and gains power over EVERYONE.  Nearly.  The dissenters (who have nearly  ALWAYS been right in the end) simply get marginalized and shouted down as the minority view, or are killed outright.  So if the man said one thing to one person, and something completely different to another, depending on the audience, then you have a fair measure of the fella – he was an ambitious, power-hungry political animal, and turned out to be quite successful at it.  Had there been mass-media and instantaneous fact-checking back then you can well imagine that most of the folks in your history books, Jefferson and Franklin foremost among them, would have been laughed out of town.

So cherry-picking one line or another from one writing or another, and ignoring just who that writing was addressed to is unfair and out of context.  NO politician or priest or rabbi or even dictator has failed to change their tone and message to suit the audience in all of recorded history.  Even us lowly, apolitical, non-religious peons with no axes to grind and no agenda to put forward are trained – as civilized and literate people – to temper our speech and weasel around a bit in our use of the language to avoid direct insult to those we disagree with in our hearts – we are taught to be at least respectful in our disagreement, and we redouble that effort when we address those who we know to be influential.

History, unfortunately, if it can be viewed from an educated and dispassionate distance (which it hardly ever is), tends to reveal all of the problems that result from hero-worship.  This thread is one of those problems.


----------

