Founding Fathers Quote of the Day

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
-Thomas Jefferson

 

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283


Pug

 

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

The Establishmnet Clause?

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."

The Free Exercise Clause?

"of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will"

Isn't this a personal decision? I don't see where this would favor any one religion.

 

Wow. Ol' Thomas J. seemed to be of two minds, alright.

 

Bill for Religious Freedom

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/statute.htm

 

<<Isn't this a personal decision? I don't see where this would favor any one religion.>>

It doesn't favor any one religion.

Pug

 

Or religion at all, really.

 

Certainly true in some matters (slavery, for example), but I don't see it in the matter of religion.

Jefferson was religious. Jefferson appreciated the teachings of Christ, but he was not a Christian. He beileved that the Christian clergy had perverted Christ's message.

It's funny that when Christians cite Jefferson's discussion of God or the Creator, they think he is supporting their point of view, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Jefferson certainly supported the right of anyone to worship as they choose, but to claim that Jefferson personally supported Christianity is laughable.

 

Besides, really, what does it matter? The constitution is the fundamental law of the land and it creates a decidedly secular government. What the drafters' personal convictions may have been is irrelevant, I think.

 

Because although he was deeply faithful, he was troubled. Not troubled by his faith by rather by the political and societal practices of organized religion. He was also troubled by his bible, the King James Bible, which he felt had been changed and corrupted throughout the centuries by men seeking power. So troubled was he that he wrote his own version of the KJB, referred to as the "Jefferson Bible".

In TJ's version there is no 'original sin', no immaculate conception (which actually refers to Mary having been conceived without stain of 'original sin' rather than her conception of Jesus while still being a virgin), no birth of Jesus by way of a virginal woman, and no divinity assigned to Jesus. Instead Jesus is depicted as the illegitimate child of Joseph and Mary, who was inspired by God to be the greatest teacher the world had ever known. Jefferson felt that Jesus taught that he was indeed inspired by God, but not uniquely inspired and that Jesus never claimed to be a manifestation of God come down to earth. Instead he felt that Jesus' message was that all humans have the potential to be inspired by God and thus live up to their God-given potential for their own betterment and for the betterment of society in general rather than use religion to further misery and corruption in the world.

Considering the times in which he lived, Jefferson had quite a set of huevos to not only publicly state such opinions but also to rewrite the KJB.

Kit

 

Interesting! The Mary, Joseph and Jesus story can be analyzed in terms of Jewish law and customs of the period, but I have never heard or read of a Christian minister doing so. (We Jews couldn't care less, of course.)

Anyway, I think the result might be something like your description of T.J.'s bible, only we would probably disagree about Jesus being a particularly good teacher or scholar. Jews have essentially rejected his teaching for about 2,000 years, you know.

 

And he is in HELL because of that.

Jefferson did not accept the divinity of Christ. Jefferson believed in God. He tried to do what he perceived as God's will. He had his flaws, but few people in the history of civilization have done more positive things for this world.

Doesn't matter. He might as well have been Stalin, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or Ted Bundy. Jesus punishes them all equally.

 

Well said!

Without the salvation of Christ we all might as well be Stalin, Dahmer, or Bundy.


BTW -- I know your comment was facetious

 

Actually, it was not.

This is my understanding of Christianity: If you do not accept the divinty of Christ, you go to Hell. It does not matter one whit whether you are Mahatma Ghandi or Adolf Hitler. Am I wrong?

 

<<It's funny that when Christians cite Jefferson's discussion of God or the Creator, they think he is supporting their point of view, when nothing could be further from the truth.>>

I think you're really generalizing here. Most Christians don't claim that Jefferson, Washington, or Adams necessarily supported their particular views with regard to religion, but rather that they demonstrated and supported the right to openly have and practice religious views in office. The common argument of the day is that our government should be completely void of any religious overtones, undertones, or references. History simply doesn't support that. If we decided to build a new Supreme Court building, or any other government office for that matter, and decided to put Moses and the 10 Commandments right on the front of the building...can you imagine the fire storm??????? But that's exactly what's there now.

<<Jefferson certainly supported the right of anyone to worship as they choose, but to claim that Jefferson personally supported Christianity is laughable.>>

I think only a handful of unlearned people would claim such a thing.

Pug

 

You are almost correct. TJ wanted to separate the ethical teachings from the religious dogma and supernatural elements in the four Gospels. He then grouped these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.

I don't recall, nor can I find reference, that he had issue with KJV of the Bible, infact, his selections are in the KJV.

He did not write his own version of the Bible, he only addressed the teachings of Christ as they were presented in the Gospels. He wanted to address the life and morals of Jesus Christ, thus the subtitle of the Jefferson Bible - "The life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth". It was little more than a commentary on the Gospels.

His position on the curruption of Christianity and his belief that the "ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen" is best left to his own words.

His letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush

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 I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and 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 in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I 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 Dr. Priestley his little treatise of "Socrates and 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 I wished to see executed by someone 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 and 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 behooves 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 behooves 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 and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.

Even as a strict fundamentalist, I find value in what he extracts concering the teachings of Christ. What is great about TJ was that he saw value in Judeo-Christian philosophy and thought it important when drafting public policy. His position on church and state with was with the politics of the church, not the heart of the man.

What excites Christian conservatives about TJ is that though "church" should not drive policy (and we certainly do not want a theocracy), Judeo-Christian Philosophy (ie the teachings of Christ) should prevail and be the foundation for policy (albiet without the introduction of dogma).

That is exactly what my goal is as a Christian, to ensure the traditionalism that made this country great (as found in the teachings and morals of Jesus Christ) is protected.

Thanks for making my point for me.

 

No you are not.

If one does not accept the divinity of Christ, his atoning death and his bodily resurrection -- one will spend eternity in hell, regardless of the deeds accomplished on earth.

 

<<This is my understanding of Christianity: If you do not accept the divinty of Christ, you go to Hell. It does not matter one whit whether you are Mahatma Ghandi or Adolf Hitler. Am I wrong?>>

Yes, and no. First, you are assuming that all Christians share the same opinion on this issue. Bad assumption. Even if you just group the evangelicals together, there will still be some division. The Bible states the following: Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

However, Romans 2:14-15 addresses those people that have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel: "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them..."

It is these verses that can bring division within the evangelical community, depending on interpretation.

Pug

 

Shield your eyes, you people of jesus.

I will burn with a righteous flame.

 

No. I didn't say that all/most/many Christians do this. I just said it is funny when it happens. How is that generalizing?

No, our government should not be without religious overtones, undertones, or references. Indeed, history does not support this.

What's funny is that you automatically assume that since religious aspects are acceptable, they MUST be Judeo-Christian.

How about if we built a new Supreme Court building that was inscribed with the pillars of Islam. Now that would be a fire storm.