Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So he was against religion?So OP, if you were to condense this all down to 2 or 3 sentences, what would you say?
"& they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
"EVERY form of tyranny over the mind of man". So either he didn't know what the fuck he was saying, or he was including religion.So he was against religion?So OP, if you were to condense this all down to 2 or 3 sentences, what would you say?
"& they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
What he was against seems spelled out clearly enough for me.....Maybe you should read it again? I'll highlight the answer to your question....
"& they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
"EVERY form of tyranny over the mind of man". So either he didn't know what the fuck he was saying, or he was including religion.So he was against religion?So OP, if you were to condense this all down to 2 or 3 sentences, what would you say?
"& they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
What he was against seems spelled out clearly enough for me.....Maybe you should read it again? I'll highlight the answer to your question....
"& they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
So he didn't know what he was talking about. That's what I thought."EVERY form of tyranny over the mind of man". So either he didn't know what the fuck he was saying, or he was including religion.So he was against religion?So OP, if you were to condense this all down to 2 or 3 sentences, what would you say?
"& they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
What he was against seems spelled out clearly enough for me.....Maybe you should read it again? I'll highlight the answer to your question....
"& they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Wait a minute! Let me think..... ummmmm... DUH
.These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
TJ is a perplexing individual in history. Extremely intelligent, he believed in the Bible except for the miracles. So he cut those out and created his own Bible.... at least those I could find before I got bored. Even more annoying to those who need to fictionalize history to suit some commie faggot friendly agenda, John Locke was not an atheist, either, but that is another topic. This one is purely informative and objective, so just ignore the inevitable and repetitive sniveling from assorted deviants and faggots who will spam the thread. these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
"I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.
But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom. You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state. I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection. Adieu"
To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800
Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, -- endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver.
SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Mar. 21, 1801
But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.
WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM
To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1801
Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion. A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle, and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them, and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite. The mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy would produce too much calm, too much regularity of good, to extract from it's disciples a support for a numerous priesthood, were they not to sophisticate it, ramify it, split it into hairs, and twist it's texts till they cover the divine morality of it's author with mysteries, and require a priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of the text by the dictates of common sense & common morality. So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful, and would have to go to the plough. In the first moments of quietude which have succeeded the election, they seem to have aroused their lying faculties beyond their ordinary state, to re-agitate the public mind. What appointments to office have they detailed which had never been thought of, merely to found a text for their calumniating commentaries.
RECONCILIATION AND REFORM
To Elbridge Gerry
Washington, Mar. 29, 1801
DEAR SIR, -- While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates & Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknolege the pleasure had in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, & still less the information which the subject needs. It will therefore rest with me in contemplation only. You are the person who of all others would do it best, and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole subject.
JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Apr. 9, 1803
DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of "Socrates & Jesus compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES
OF JESUS, COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHERS April, 1803
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.
Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.
I. PHILOSOPHERS. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.
2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred & friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors & countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity & love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.
II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life & doctrines fell on the most unlettered & ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33. years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of 3. years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.
4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.
.These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
of course, the true Jefferson participation wasn't meant for disclosure in the public domain ... just disregard the "discomfort" caused by the insensitivity they have for the subject matter.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- just because they make you uncomfortable.
no, Jefferson was not a christian, the truth be told. = good fruit.
..These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
of course, the true Jefferson participation wasn't meant for disclosure in the public domain ... just disregard the "discomfort" caused by the insensitivity they have for the subject matter.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- just because they make you uncomfortable.
no, Jefferson was not a christian, the truth be told. = good fruit.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
..These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
of course, the true Jefferson participation wasn't meant for disclosure in the public domain ... just disregard the "discomfort" caused by the insensitivity they have for the subject matter.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- just because they make you uncomfortable.
no, Jefferson was not a christian, the truth be told. = good fruit.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit ...
fruits -
who are you saying through the centuries have, and not christian but the events of the 1st century not your religion of the roman empire ...
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- or maybe they thought better of burning someones feet as being described elsewhere than what was then their translation used for that purpose.
simply put, not the religion of the 1st century but that of the 4th century = bad fruit. TJ.
fruits -
who are you saying through the centuries have, and not christian but the events of the 1st century not your religion of the Roman Empire
...These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
of course, the true Jefferson participation wasn't meant for disclosure in the public domain ... just disregard the "discomfort" caused by the insensitivity they have for the subject matter.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- just because they make you uncomfortable.
no, Jefferson was not a christian, the truth be told. = good fruit.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit ...
fruits -
who are you saying through the centuries have, and not christian but the events of the 1st century not your religion of the roman empire ...
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- or maybe they thought better of burning someones feet as being described elsewhere than what was then their translation used for that purpose.
simply put, not the religion of the 1st century but that of the 4th century = bad fruit. TJ.
Are we still discussing the religious affiliation of Thomas Jefferson?
Your comment isn’t clearly written but I think you are bringing up an entirely different subject.
Are we still discussing the religious affiliation of Thomas Jefferson?
Your comment isn’t clearly written but I think you are bringing up an entirely different subject.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Jefferson was a deist (barely) who believed none of the magical horseshit in Thebible. He simply liked the teachings of Jesus. An opinion pretty much in line with atheists, and at odds with magical believers of goofy voodoo like you who snap-fit the Bible to your fetishes, bigotry, and neuroses.THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803
DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of December 12 came duly to hand, as did the 2^d. letter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise of Phlogiston, for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, who departs in a day or two for Paris, & will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I have also to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of your Harmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It is the first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those long repetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different one because related with some different circumstances.
I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier & better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments Greek of the same edition, & two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.
JESUS, LOUISIANA, AND MALTHUS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Jan. 29, 1804
And so endeth the book of Kings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us, and have you, my friend, and all such good men and true, in his holy keeping.
"THE BOOK OF KINGS"
To Governor John Langdon
Monticello, March 5, 1810
It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the
1st. century. Their Platonising successors indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.
For a comparison of the Graecian philosophy with that of Jesus, materials might be largely drawn from the same source. Enfield gives a history, and detailed account of the opinions and principles of the different sects. These relate to
the gods, their natures, grades, places and powers;
the demi-gods and daemons, and their agency with man;
the Universe, it's structure, extent, production and duration;
the origin of things from the elements of fire, water, air and earth;
the human soul, it's essence and derivation;
the summum bonum and finis bonorum; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies on these and other subjects the knowledge of which is withheld from man, leaving but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principal section of that given to what he owes himself, to precepts for rendering him impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and for preserving his mind in a state of constant serenity.
Such a canvas is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially of one whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of life. We must leave therefore to others, younger and more learned than we are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and it's restoration to the primitive simplicity of it's founder. I think you give a just outline of the theism of the three religions when you say that the principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the honor, and of the Christian the love of God.
These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance
Love the King
Take joy in serving the king
Make peace, avoid war
With longsuffering wait patiently for the wicked king to die
Be gentle with those with whom you disagree
Live with goodness even if others do wrong
Have faith that things will improve
Using meekness to overcome your enemies
With temperance don’t indulge in the pleasure of anger
I’m sure there were American colonist that showed Christian character and fought for the crown. Those who rebelled were not Christians in the least bit. Don’t let modern Bible thumpers fool you with their BS. The founding fathers have more in common with Satan than with Jesus.
Some American colonies were Christian theocracies but the United States never was, never has been and never will be. The United States was founded on the concept of rebellion against wicked authority. Rebellion is advocated nowhere in scripture. As a matter of fact rebellion is considered evil.
Removing texts from the Bible is a highly heinous crime in the book of Revelations. Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. That is horse do do.
TJ is a perplexing individual in history. Extremely intelligent, he believed in the Bible except for the miracles. So he cut those out and created his own Bible.... at least those I could find before I got bored. Even more annoying to those who need to fictionalize history to suit some commie faggot friendly agenda, John Locke was not an atheist, either, but that is another topic. This one is purely informative and objective, so just ignore the inevitable and repetitive sniveling from assorted deviants and faggots who will spam the thread. these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
"I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.
But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom. You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state. I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection. Adieu"
To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800
Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, -- endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver.
SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Mar. 21, 1801
But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.
WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM
To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1801
Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion. A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle, and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them, and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite. The mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy would produce too much calm, too much regularity of good, to extract from it's disciples a support for a numerous priesthood, were they not to sophisticate it, ramify it, split it into hairs, and twist it's texts till they cover the divine morality of it's author with mysteries, and require a priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of the text by the dictates of common sense & common morality. So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful, and would have to go to the plough. In the first moments of quietude which have succeeded the election, they seem to have aroused their lying faculties beyond their ordinary state, to re-agitate the public mind. What appointments to office have they detailed which had never been thought of, merely to found a text for their calumniating commentaries.
RECONCILIATION AND REFORM
To Elbridge Gerry
Washington, Mar. 29, 1801
DEAR SIR, -- While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates & Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknolege the pleasure had in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, & still less the information which the subject needs. It will therefore rest with me in contemplation only. You are the person who of all others would do it best, and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole subject.
JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Apr. 9, 1803
DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of "Socrates & Jesus compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES
OF JESUS, COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHERS April, 1803
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.
Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.
I. PHILOSOPHERS. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.
2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred & friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors & countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity & love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.
II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life & doctrines fell on the most unlettered & ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33. years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of 3. years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.
4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.
Same with slavery. He created the document that says we are all equal, yet never gave up buying and selling slaves.
I’ve yet to come up with an explanation for him. The man was two extremes.
Jefferson was a deist (barely) who believed none of the magical horseshit in Thebible. He simply liked the teachings of Jesus. An opinion pretty much in line with atheists, and at odds with magical believers of goofy voodoo like you who snap-fit the Bible to your fetishes, bigotry, and neuroses.THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803
DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of December 12 came duly to hand, as did the 2^d. letter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise of Phlogiston, for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, who departs in a day or two for Paris, & will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I have also to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of your Harmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It is the first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those long repetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different one because related with some different circumstances.
I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier & better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments Greek of the same edition, & two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.
JESUS, LOUISIANA, AND MALTHUS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Jan. 29, 1804
And so endeth the book of Kings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us, and have you, my friend, and all such good men and true, in his holy keeping.
"THE BOOK OF KINGS"
To Governor John Langdon
Monticello, March 5, 1810
It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the
1st. century. Their Platonising successors indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.
For a comparison of the Graecian philosophy with that of Jesus, materials might be largely drawn from the same source. Enfield gives a history, and detailed account of the opinions and principles of the different sects. These relate to
the gods, their natures, grades, places and powers;
the demi-gods and daemons, and their agency with man;
the Universe, it's structure, extent, production and duration;
the origin of things from the elements of fire, water, air and earth;
the human soul, it's essence and derivation;
the summum bonum and finis bonorum; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies on these and other subjects the knowledge of which is withheld from man, leaving but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principal section of that given to what he owes himself, to precepts for rendering him impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and for preserving his mind in a state of constant serenity.
Such a canvas is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially of one whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of life. We must leave therefore to others, younger and more learned than we are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and it's restoration to the primitive simplicity of it's founder. I think you give a just outline of the theism of the three religions when you say that the principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the honor, and of the Christian the love of God.
..These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
of course, the true Jefferson participation wasn't meant for disclosure in the public domain ... just disregard the "discomfort" caused by the insensitivity they have for the subject matter.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- just because they make you uncomfortable.
no, Jefferson was not a christian, the truth be told. = good fruit.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit ...
fruits -
who are you saying through the centuries have, and not christian but the events of the 1st century not your religion of the roman empire ...
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- or maybe they thought better of burning someones feet as being described elsewhere than what was then their translation used for that purpose.
simply put, not the religion of the 1st century but that of the 4th century = bad fruit. TJ.
Are we still discussing the religious affiliation of Thomas Jefferson?
Your comment isn’t clearly written but I think you are bringing up an entirely different subject.
...These letters look credible to me. I’m not sure why someone from the 21st century would write in an 18th century English dialect if he was trying to create dishonest propaganda. Wouldn’t a liar head use modern language to prove his point.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
Thomas Jefferson was a very liberal Christian. I’m sure that is why he is painted as a deist by some and a Christian by others. It is clear that he was a fan of Christianity as a philosophy but despised Christianity when it was used by fanatics to exert power over the weaker minded followers of Christ.
Jefferson’s religious convictions were ambiguous which is why they are still debated. There is no clear cut answer. Even after reading these letters I do not believe Jefferson was a Christian. These letters create no slam dunk case either way. The Bible says we shall know them by their fruit.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
Jefferson was a Christian only by the most liberal usage of the word Christian. I guess if you need him to be a Christian because of your political motives then the argument can be made. I’m personally not convinced.
Anybody who challenged these letters was lazy, unfair and vindictive. There is nothing outrageous or suspicious about these letters at all.
these are mostly letters to friends, not political screeds he intended to be made public. Don't confuse the two.
of course, the true Jefferson participation wasn't meant for disclosure in the public domain ... just disregard the "discomfort" caused by the insensitivity they have for the subject matter.
Participating in an insurrection against the British government. = bad fruit
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- just because they make you uncomfortable.
no, Jefferson was not a christian, the truth be told. = good fruit.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Discontentment and rebellion aren’t one of the 9 fruits of the spirit. Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit. I guess I should have been more specific.
Thomas Jefferson did not produce Christian fruit ...
fruits -
who are you saying through the centuries have, and not christian but the events of the 1st century not your religion of the roman empire ...
Creating a translation of the Bible that removes all miracles and supernatural elements just because they make you uncomfortable. = bad fruit.
- or maybe they thought better of burning someones feet as being described elsewhere than what was then their translation used for that purpose.
simply put, not the religion of the 1st century but that of the 4th century = bad fruit. TJ.
Are we still discussing the religious affiliation of Thomas Jefferson?
Your comment isn’t clearly written but I think you are bringing up an entirely different subject.
He's just a whiner, never does anything else here, like the Angry Faggot Brigade, so pay no mind to he/she/it/mutant.
He's just a whiner, never does anything else here, like the Angry Faggot Brigade, so pay no mind to he/she/it/mutant.
Your comment isn’t clearly written but I think you are bringing up an entirely different subject.
