Framers/Founders Religious beliefs

[toastywombel]

Well, Jefferson is definitely an interesting figure to be sure. He is a "Christian" insofar as he believed the moral code spelled out by Jesus in the New Testament was the purest path to human happiness as can exist, but he also did not believe in the Resurrection, walking on water, and other miracles in the same text.

 

So on one hand he was a Christian in that he truly did believe that the teachings of Jesus were the salvation of mankind.... and on the other he wasn't a Christian as he didn't believe in the original sin from which Christ (read: savior) purportedly saved humanity.

 

As such, and as a Christian myself, I must laugh at the fact that Jefferson was a better Christian in many respects than many professed Christians! Of course, he was also a slave holder, so he wasn't that great of a Christian either.

 

As I recall the bible says nothing about how it is bad to own slaves.

 

You seem to describe Jefferson's beliefs accurately, but I don't think Jefferson truly considered himself a Christian.

On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

 

http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

In private letters, Jefferson refers to himself as a "Christian" (1803),[7][8] "a sect by myself" (1819),[2] an "Epicurean" (1819),[9] a "Materialist" (1820),[10] and a "Unitarian by myself" (1825).[11] While many biographers have characterized Jefferson as a Deist, nowhere does he call himself a Deist, though he does praise Jesus for what he (Jefferson) considered a form of deism in an 1803 letter to Priestley,[12] and again in an 1817 letter to John Adams.[13]

Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture".[30] He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", [31] and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications".[31] He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[32]

 

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

Edited April 27, 2010 by toastywombel

[iNow]

Well, Jefferson is definitely an interesting figure to be sure. He is a "Christian" insofar as he believed the moral code spelled out by Jesus

I tend to quite disagree with your argument here. Even I find the stories describing Jesus to contain a lot of good ideals and approaches to life which should be followed. Does that make ME a Christian? Hardly. Same applies to Jefferson.

 

In much the same way, I find that there are passages in the Qu'ran which are meaningful and describe quality behaviors of humans which should be adopted. Does that make me a Muslim? Absolutely not.

 

Your argument is deeply flawed, at least as you've presented it above regarding Jeffersons religious predilections.

 

 

in the New Testament was the purest path to human happiness as can exist, but he also did not believe in the Resurrection, walking on water, and other miracles in the same text.

 

<...>

 

and on the other [hand] he wasn't a Christian as he didn't believe in the original sin from which Christ (read: savior) purportedly saved humanity.

I don't see how one can hope to make a reasonable argument that a person was Christian when that person absolutely rejects the core tenets and foundations of Christian belief. If a person does not accept the divinity of Jesus, does not accept the resurrection, does not accept the virgin birth, then that person cannot reasonably be called a Christian. It's truly that simple. Those are core to the Christian system of beliefs, and if you reject the core, you reject the system.

[jryan]

As I recall the bible says nothing about how it is bad to own slaves.

 

Matthew 7:9-12 covers it pretty well, I think:

 

"9 Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 

 

You seem to describe Jefferson's beliefs accurately, but I don't think Jefferson truly considered himself a Christian.

 

He considered himself a "pure christian" as he only concerned himself with the moral code of Jesus.

 

Note also that when Jefferson considers himself a sect unto himself. Sect here being a subdivision of Christianity. Jefferson was very deliberate and honest with his words -- he spared no one when he chose to speak against some aspects of the Christian religion-- and his word usage should not be easily overlooked. Had he said he was a religion unto himself I would agree with you.. but he didn't say that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I tend to quite disagree with your argument here. Even I find the stories describing Jesus to contain a lot of good ideals and approaches to life which should be followed. Does that make ME a Christian? Hardly. Same applies to Jefferson.

 

Well, actually in some Christian doctrine it does make you Christian. Many Christian sects, such as the Bible Churches, believe that all you need to be "saved" and be a Christian is to believe in Jesus' teachings. As such, if you weed out everything in the bible other than what Jesus was actually reported to have said and taught, and you believe that that is a good and right way to live your life, then you would be considered a Christian... to Bible Churches, anyway.

 

Catholicism is actually even more lenient, believe it or not. Pope John Paul II towards the end of his reign issued rather clear argument that runs as follows (I'll paraphrase the Bible Verse):

 

1) Jesus was God's word made flesh

2) God wrote his word onto the heart of all people

3) Ergo, doing what you know is right is equal to believing in Jesus

 

This was a long standing article of the Catholic faith that he clarified (much to the consternation of some in the Church). As such, it is not necessary to be Catholic to be saved, and it is not enough to be Catholic to be saved. In Catholicism salvation is predicated on deeds, not simple belief.

 

There is a whole theological discussion of salvation in here that I find fascinating as I don't thing the Bible Church and Catholicism are as far off of one another as their doctrine makes it appear. But that is a discussion for the religion thread.

 

Anyway, there are at least two sects of Christianity there that would consider you a Christian simply for believing in the code that Jesus taught.

 

In much the same way, I find that there are passages in the Qu'ran which are meaningful and describe quality behaviors of humans which should be adopted. Does that make me a Muslim? Absolutely not.

 

Well, I wouldn't know off the top of my head how exclusionary Islam is in that regard, but I would guess you are correct. It should also be pointed out that in the previously mentioned Catholicism you wouldn't be considered a Catholic either, you just wouldn't be ruled out of salvation for not being Catholic.

 

 

Your argument is deeply flawed, at least as you've presented it above regarding Jefferson's religious predilections.

 

I don't think it is when you actually consider the actual teachings of the various Christian sects.

 

I'll avoid Jefferson's quotes in that regard though, as I already spoke against that method of proof.

 

More later

Edited April 27, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

[Re: Slavery in the bible] Matthew 7:9-12 covers it pretty well, I think:

 

"9 Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 

You know where else in the bible slavery is covered?

 

Leviticus

Exodus

Ephesians

1 Timothy

Luke

 

In each place, slavery is rampant and approved.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, actually in some Christian doctrine it does make you Christian. Many Christian sects, such as the Bible Churches, believe that all you need to be "saved" and be a Christian is to believe in Jesus' teachings.

 

<...>

 

Anyway, there are at least two sects of Christianity there that would consider you a Christian simply for believing in the code that Jesus taught.

I don't disagree that some sects and churches believe that. My point is that their doctrine and belief is irrelevant to the truth of my own worldview and affiliations.

 

I suggest that a much more reasonable response is that these sects and religious groups absorbed these teachings which themselves were already a part of successful human societies... that these teachings were actually absorbed and incorporated after the fact as part of their doctrine... that these ideals were actually a part of successful human societies long before the religions came along.

 

In short, the concepts came first, and then the religions absorbed them and made them a part of their own teachings. The fact that I agree with many of these concepts... concepts which were absorbed by a religion after the fact... does not mean I can be reasonably considered to be a part of that religion.

 

Likewise, the fact that Jefferson considered some of these ideas meritorious does not ipso fact mandate that he can reasonably be considered a believer in that religion (especially when you couple this fact with his many other writings on the topic and how strongly he was against the core tenets of their doctrine).

[jryan]

You know where else in the bible slavery is covered?

 

Leviticus

Exodus

Ephesians

1 Timothy

Luke

 

In each place, slavery is rampant and approved.

 

Actually, no they're not. First off, the Luke quote is talking about "servants" not slaves, and Timothy doesn't condone slavery but simply tells those stuck in slavery that it is no excuse for not following the teachings of Jesus. This is also in the category of "do unto others".

 

As far as the old Testament quotes... well, there was a reason for a New Testament. It would be like trying to fault science because scientific beliefs 3000 years ago were screwy.

 

 

I don't disagree that some sects and churches believe that. My point is that their doctrine and belief is irrelevant to the truth of my own worldview and affiliations.

 

And your world view and affiliations are of no concern to them. I am simply pointing out that others would consider you a Christian regardless of your personal characterizations.

 

I suggest that a much more reasonable response is that these sects and religious groups absorbed these teachings which themselves were already a part of successful human societies... that these teachings were actually absorbed and incorporated after the fact as part of their doctrine... that these ideals were actually a part of successful human societies long before the religions came along.

 

You could certainly argue that, but that isn't invalidating the arguments of either of those groups.

 

In short, the concepts came first, and then the religions absorbed them and made them a part of their own teachings. The fact that I agree with many of these concepts... concepts which were absorbed by a religion after the fact... does not mean I can be reasonably considered to be a part of that religion.

 

Well, as I said before, they wouldn't consider you to be a member of their sect either. You would be, as Jefferson put it, a "sect of one".

 

Likewise, the fact that Jefferson considered some of these ideas meritorious does not ipso fact mandate that he can reasonably be considered a believer in that religion (especially when you couple this fact with his many other writings on the topic and how strongly he was against the core tenets of their doctrine).

 

Well, we get back into the discussion of religious sects here, since "Christianity" covers a rather wide swatch of disparate sects. Calling "Christianity" a religion is not very informative. But if Jefferson considered himself a sect of one, and an adherent to the teachings of Jesus that should be enough.

 

In other words, it is not reasonable for you to consider Jefferson a non-Christian when he doesn't appear to consider himself that.. rather just separate from other Christian sects.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Back to the last post that I had to break from:

 

I don't see how one can hope to make a reasonable argument that a person was Christian when that person absolutely rejects the core tenets and foundations of Christian belief. If a person does not accept the divinity of Jesus, does not accept the resurrection, does not accept the virgin birth, then that person cannot reasonably be called a Christian. It's truly that simple. Those are core to the Christian system of beliefs, and if you reject the core, you reject the system.

 

No, it's not truly that simple, iNow. Though now I realize I already gave you two reasons why your simplification of Christianity (in all it's many forms) isn't the case.

 

But I would suggest that you look at Christianity backwards rather than forwards. All Christians believe in salvation (in one form or another), and it is that salvation that is the core of Christianity. In that way, you are considered to be a Christian because, whether you believe in Christianity's miracles, you still strive to reach the same point that Christians do... an end of life with the knowledge of a life well lived and well loved. Whether something is on the other side when the lights go out is something Christians would be happy to discuss with you on the other side... or it is irrelevant.

 

But in both cases you lived lives that brought you to the same place and had you live the same way... save possibly for an hour or so on Sunday.

[toastywombel]

Jryan you said,

He considered himself a "pure christian" as he only concerned himself with the moral code of Jesus.

 

Note also that when Jefferson considers himself a sect unto himself. Sect here being a subdivision of Christianity. Jefferson was very deliberate and honest with his words -- he spared no one when he chose to speak against some aspects of the Christian religion-- and his word usage should not be easily overlooked. Had he said he was a religion unto himself I would agree with you.. but he didn't say that.

 

Do you ever read anything I post? Seriously, or just re-iterate your point which is rather misleading. You are over emphasising the Christianity part of Jefferson's religion. He believed in the philosophy of Jesus. And he did say he was a religion unto himself, as he said he was a Unitarian unto himself.

In private letters, Jefferson refers to himself as a "Christian" (1803),[7][8] "a sect by myself" (1819),[2] an "Epicurean" (1819),[9] a "Materialist" (1820),[10] and a "Unitarian by myself" (1825).[11] While many biographers have characterized Jefferson as a Deist, nowhere does he call himself a Deist, though he does praise Jesus for what he (Jefferson) considered a form of deism in an 1803 letter to Priestley,[12] and again in an 1817 letter to John Adams.[13]

*Reference link in previous post

 

Jefferson never exclusively says, or commits to the idea that he is part of a sect by himself which is a subdivision of Christianity. That just simply is not true Jryan.

Actually, no they're not. First off, the Luke quote is talking about "servants" not slaves, and Timothy doesn't condone slavery but simply tells those stuck in slavery that it is no excuse for not following the teachings of Jesus. This is also in the category of "do unto others".

 

To expand upon what iNow was saying,

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

 

Leviticus 25:44

 

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

 

Exodus 21:2

 

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

 

Exodus 21:7

 

Is that enough old testament approval of slavery for you Jryan? How about New Testament,

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

 

Ephesians 6:5

 

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.

 

Luke 12:47

 

Okay Luke was talking about servants, not slaves.

 

Servent- one that serves others <a public servant>; especially : one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer.

 

A servant be a slave or an employee. Hence the use of the phrase, "master or personal employer".

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/servant

 

But I'll give you that one, but tell me who was Timothy talking about?

 

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

 

Timothy 6:1

 

So after all that listed above (from the Old and New Testament), is it still this one lonely quote, which doesn't even refer to slavery directly that servers as the defence to your argument that the bible does not openly support slavery?

 

"9 Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 

Rather weak compared to the above quotes.

 

In that way, you are considered to be a Christian because, whether you believe in Christianity's miracles, you still strive to reach the same point that Christians do... an end of life with the knowledge of a life well lived and well loved. Whether something is on the other side when the lights go out is something Christians would be happy to discuss with you on the other side... or it is irrelevant.

 

So then someone who wants to live a good, complete, and right life is a Buddhist by default, because they want to reach the same point as the Buddhists do?

 

That is very faulty logic Jryan, simply because one accepts a few tenants of a Religion, it does not mean they are a follower, subdivision, or sect of that Religion.

 

According to that logic, everyone who believes in basic morals is a Christian.

 

On a side note, It is pretty obvious that the Bible openly promotes slavery as it is pretty obvious that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. Please Jryan, why do you choose to be wrong to support your ideologies, why can't you concede such obvious, obvious points?

Edited April 27, 2010 by toastywombel

[jryan]

Jryan you said,

 

Do you ever read anything I post? Seriously, or just re-iterate your point which is rather misleading. You are over emphasising the Christianity part of Jefferson's religion. He believed in the philosophy of Jesus. And he did say he was a religion unto himself, as he said he was a Unitarian unto himself.

 

In private letters, Jefferson refers to himself as a "Christian" (1803),[7][8] "a sect by myself" (1819),[2] an "Epicurean" (1819),[9] a "Materialist" (1820),[10] and a "Unitarian by myself" (1825).[11] While many biographers have characterized Jefferson as a Deist, nowhere does he call himself a Deist, though he does praise Jesus for what he (Jefferson) considered a form of deism in an 1803 letter to Priestley,[12] and again in an 1817 letter to John Adams.[13]

 

 

None of these are any more exclusionary to Christianity than they are exclusionary to one another, TW.

 

 

Jefferson never exclusively says, or commits to the idea that he is part of a sect by himself which is a subdivision of Christianity. That just simply is not true Jryan.

 

A sect IS a subdivision of a religion, TW. When he said that he was placing himself at odds with other Christian sects (aka. "denominations"). Had he meant he was not among the ranks of Christians he would have said so... but all he did was claim a schism with other denominations.

 

To expand upon what iNow was saying,

 

Is that enough old testament approval of slavery for you Jryan? How about New Testament,

 

As I stated before, that is the old testament. In the old testament there were laws against enslaving fellow Israelites, as they were all considered God's chosen people, or children of God.

 

Then along came Jesus and the new Testament wherein Jesus makes it abundantly clear than ALL PEOPLE are children of God and God's chosen people and there, with the force of his wisodm, slavery ceased to be acceptable to Jesus' adherents (or should have been.. though we don't always listen)

 

 

 

But I'll give you that one, but tell me who was Timothy talking about?

 

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

 

Timothy 6:1

 

So after all that listed above (from the Old and New Testament), is it still this one lonely quote, which doesn't even refer to slavery directly that servers as the defence to your argument that the bible does not openly support slavery?

 

 

Timothy is talking to the slave, not the slave holder. How can that be considered as condoning slavery? As I stated before, upon Jesus' revelation that all people are God's chosen people slavery ceased to be supported by Christianity. In Timothy he is simply saying that you must remain true to Jesus teachings even as a slave.

 

But in thta there is also some wisdom, as acting kind and dutiful even to your master would show the strength of Jesus' teachings, and in so doing may sway your master to the Christian path. In doing so, you may yet be freed from bondage... indeed, Christianity over the succeeding one and a half millennium was the driving force for the abolition of slavery.

 

Even those Christians that had slaves must be treated respectfully. Note, however, that the master being Christian is "no excuse" for being disrespectful, meaning that even though the Christian master is in the wrong, you still must behave as a Christian yourself.

 

 

Rather weak compared to the above quotes.

 

It has been rather effective, however. It has eradicated the practice of slavery in predominantly Christian nations. In the end, you will find that any people who believed themselves Christian who sought justification for slavery did so through the old testament or through faulty science (arguing that blacks were not humans, for example)

 

 

So then someone who wants to live a good, complete, and right life is a Buddhist by default, because they want to reach the same point as the Buddhist do?

 

I would say that if you behave as a Buddhist most Buddhists would say yes.

 

That is very faulty logic Jryan, simply because one accepts a few tenants of a Religion, it does not mean they are a follower, subdivision, or sect of that Religion.

 

Well, if they follow the moral code of the given religion or sect then they are following that religion, as all religions, on this side of death, are simply moral guides.

 

 

According to that logic, everyone who believes in basic morals is a Christian.

 

True, according to many Christian sects that's true.. or at the very least entitled to all the same benefits as fellow Christians. You don't have to WANT to be a member of a group to be a member of a group anyway.

 

On a side note, you know you aren't required to always be wrong

 

Oh good.. since I am always correct I was starting to feel I was letting someone down.

 

 

On a side note, It is pretty obvious that the Bible openly promotes slavery as it is pretty obvious that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. Please Jryan, why do you choose to be wrong to support your ideologies, why can't you concede such obvious, obvious points?

 

Again, no it doesn't. You are taking a few passages out of the entire many thousands of passages in the Bible and trying to make them stand on their own. It doesn't work that way. There is a New Testament that is there to help you understand the Old Testament, and an Old Testament to help you understand how we arrived at the New Testament. I would suggest that if you insist on trying to use the Bible against Christianity that you at least accept that simple truth. It doesn't even require an article of faith! It's just plain old true.

Edited April 27, 2010 by jryan

[iNow]

Biblical logic stretching and strained arguments aside, Jefferson was hardly some christian, and most of his contemporaries... the key founders of the US... were deists. The only way to think otherwise is to skew reality to fit a preconception.

[jryan]

It's interesting also to note that when discussing the formal seal of the United States of America that both Jefferson and Franklin (the two most commonly attributed to being Deists) both proposed images of the biblical Jewish Exodus.

Edited April 28, 2010 by jryan