|
Author
|
Topic: What is our Christian Heritage?
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
Old Tom cut out the miracles because his mind could not understand them. His lack of understanding in this point in no way proves that he did not understand the other truths embodied in Gods commandments and precepts
Interesting, that is exactly what it meant when the Pharisee did the same thing. To reject his works was to reject the Father because his works were not HIS but the Father's.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Adv.Christian
Advanced Member
Member # 3453
|
posted
![[Cross]](graemlins/cross.gif) It is not a matter of what a person would need to do, but instead a matter of how we as Christians appear to those whom read what is written. As always my love to all and May God Bless. ![[Prayer]](graemlins/prayer.gif)
--------------------
A person talking can not be listening; A person not listening can not be learning.
Posts: 299 | From: Raleigh/North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adv.Christian:
If a person truly reads what is written in these posts and sees it through the filter of their understanding would we like what they see? ![[crying]](graemlins/crying.gif)
Does one need to?
Stand fast and see the wonders of the Lord.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Adv.Christian
Advanced Member
Member # 3453
|
posted
If a person truly reads what is written in these posts and sees it through the filter of their understanding would we like what they see?
--------------------
A person talking can not be listening; A person not listening can not be learning.
Posts: 299 | From: Raleigh/North Carolina | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by wparr:
So is that how you witness to people, insult them or call them names it they hold a different opinion of them?
Great tactic
VERY Biblical indeed.
No this is how I figure out which is the smartest arss, I mean mule. Hehe...
Have a good day my brother.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
quote:
" Yes, Tom took it upon himself to re-write the Bible"
No~ Old Tom did a cut and past.
Please study the subject a little more befor you post again.
Thankyou.
The devil did cut and paste too and when you begin cutting and pasting the parts of the scripture that you want to agree with, you generally begin to author lies.
Jesus said:
Man lives by EVERY word that precedeth from the Father... not just the ones you want to cut and paste.
Lame argument Wildb... you can do better than that cant you?
Don't need to. Its so simple its stupid and needs no more exhortation.
Everybody cuts and past to their own hearts accourding to the light of their understanding.
Phil.3
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Old Tom cut out the miracles because his mind could not understand them. His lack of understanding in this point in no way proves that he did not understand the other truths embodied in Gods commandments and precepts.
Pss.40
[7] Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
The Devil cut by design not ignorance.
(Lat. in, not, and gnarus, knowing)
Ignorance is lack of knowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Fundamentally speaking and with regard to a given object ignorance is the outcome of the limitations of our intellect or of the obscurity of the matter itself.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
" Yes, Tom took it upon himself to re-write the Bible"
No~ Old Tom did a cut and past.
Please study the subject a little more befor you post again.
Thankyou.
The devil did cut and paste too and when you begin cutting and pasting the parts of the scripture that you want to agree with, you generally begin to author lies.
Jesus said:
Man lives by EVERY word that precedeth from the Father... not just the ones you want to cut and paste.
Lame argument Wildb... you can do better than that cant you?
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
SoftTouch
Advanced Member
Member # 2316
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
When it is understood that those that wrote the constitution were involved in “The Masonic Lodge” and “The Illuminati” and you understand when they use the term “God” they are referring to “Lucifer” the God of the world, you can understand why the term “In God We Trust” does not refer to “Yahweh” the Elohim of Scripture.
The God in whom they refer is Satan
They also understood that the way to create a “New World Order” was through world finance.
“No man will be able to buy or sell lest they receive the mark of the beast”.
And those that have understanding know why there has been a systematic destruction of the greatest Nation the World has seen since “The Roman Empire”.
When you understand who their God is you understand…
Why the government of America gave us treaties like NAFTA, GAT, FTAA, WTO!
Why the government gave America “The American Patriot Act” and “The Homeland Security Act”!
The German people accepted Hitler because the conditions were right, there was no work, the economy was dead, the people were staving. The German’s were like Adam and every other unregenerate fallen man, they needed someone to blame for their sin. Hitler gave them the Jews to blame.
The coming anti-Christ will blame the Christians and Jews
Don’t be deceived you can not be a citizen with allegiance to two Countries.
AMEN! I have tried so many times on this board to show how the Illumanti (through Freemasonry) was behind the founding of this country, and how Freemasonry 'pretended' to be Christian. But "The Powers that Be" in this world have been very thorough in their multi-media propoganda techniques which convince the masses that those of us who believe this are "Conspiracy Nuts." Just how many times have you heard Bush Sr (and even Jr.) tout the term "New World Order?" That should speak volumns in and of it's self.
--------------------
Psalm 119:104Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Posts: 3465 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
WildB wrote:
quote:
No~ Old Tom did a cut and past.
Please study the subject a little more befor you post again.
Thankyou.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I've got the thing on my bookshelf, and having read it and examined it numerous times I think I may be allowed some credit for familiarity with the subject matter. Please excuse a little bit of hyperbole on my part. The fact remains that however you say it, Jefferson published a version of the Bible that would not be recognized as such by a modern evagelistic Christian. And since this version was a manifestation of his beliefs and world views it can serve as more than adequate evidence that Jefferson, a Founding Father, was not the Christian that certain current pundits would make him out to be. That was the point I was contributing to, and it is uneffected by whether he 'cut and pasted' it or 're-wrote' it.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
If you want to know how Jefferson really perceived Christianity, then read his version of the Bible. Yes, Tom took it upon himself to re-write the Bible and if you read it, you will see that Jefferson had a very different idea of what Christianity, and indeed religion, meant, not just to the person, but to the Republic.
" Yes, Tom took it upon himself to re-write the Bible"
No~ Old Tom did a cut and past.
Please study the subject a little more befor you post again.
Thankyou.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
When it is understood that those that wrote the constitution were involved in “The Masonic Lodge” and “The Illuminati” and you understand when they use the term “God” they are referring to “Lucifer” the God of the world, you can understand why the term “In God We Trust” does not refer to “Yahweh” the Elohim of Scripture.
The God in whom they refer is Satan
They also understood that the way to create a “New World Order” was through world finance.
“No man will be able to buy or sell lest they receive the mark of the beast”.
And those that have understanding know why there has been a systematic destruction of the greatest Nation the World has seen since “The Roman Empire”.
When you understand who their God is you understand…
Why the government of America gave us treaties like NAFTA, GAT, FTAA, WTO!
Why the government gave America “The American Patriot Act” and “The Homeland Security Act”!
The German people accepted Hitler because the conditions were right, there was no work, the economy was dead, the people were staving. The German’s were like Adam and every other unregenerate fallen man, they needed someone to blame for their sin. Hitler gave them the Jews to blame.
The coming anti-Christ will blame the Christians and Jews
Don’t be deceived you can not be a citizen with allegiance to two Countries.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
To What mule do we address? Oh the one thats smiling, hehe.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WhiteEagle
Advanced Member
Member # 3728
|
posted
To go straight to the bottom line of all this; ie Thomas Jefferson comparing Jesus to Socrates and debating about "real" Christians.
The men who wrote the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution were the most elite intellectually, and most educated men of that time. (Notice I didn't say they were Christians all)
These intellectuals were seeking to find and incorporate the best wordly government in which to base this New Country upon.
I believe these letters reflect their thought processes in this effort.
They held up the past ancient civilizations of Greece and Roman cultures as part of their model of government for America. They also wanted freedom of Religion for all people, and avoid the mandated STATE Church such as English had.
They didn't want a "king" or so sole ruler to have all the governmental powers.
Jesus Christ definately influenced many things, but like Jefferson and others they looked upon Jesus as a mere good man and used His teachings in a legalistic manner only for use in governmental laws.
George Washington I believe was a born again Christian, and even wrote in his last Inaugural Address that he believed that Christianity breed honorable citizens and the true Patriot would be a Christian. But even he looked at Christianity as a means to an end in controlling people to obey the governmental laws.
So basically any roots of Christianity in early America's history was used by men to make people obey their government.
Posts: 1392 | From: Maine | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Now, on that we agree; the framers never intended to remove God from our society. That is exactly what I was saying in the post on schools.
First of all: You cant keep God out of government as long as you have Christians in government and being governed.
However, the idea that we are to legislate religion is another idea. The framers did not intend to establish Christianity as the official religion of the Union either, they did not even agreement on what Christianity was or who Jesus was.
It is what Constantine did;and had no right to do. ONLY Christ will establish ONE NATION under GOD on this earth.
Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Paul did not go to Caesar and tell him how to run his government as a Christian government. Paul went to caesar and told him about Christ.
Our constitution did not separate Church and state; but the bible does:
Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
There will not be ONE Nation under God until Christ comes again and sets it up.
We are One Nation - a Holy Nation and peculiar people, but we are not citizens of this earth or its kingdoms.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Until then we are to live this way:
1 Timothy 2:1 ¶ I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
We so need to get this because that is what the antiChrist will be working to accomlish - one world under god - little g.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Is the First Amendment Christian?
Dr. Larry Spargimino
Are you troubled by the moral deterioration of our society? Are you perhaps even more troubled by the way profanity is creeping into the public arena with individuals claiming that it is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution?
The Miracle Of Verbal Communication And Its Corruption
Scripture reveals that human beings have been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). This means that there is some degree of correspondence between God and man. This is what makes us different from the animals.
One of the areas of correspondence is speech. Both God and man can speak and communicate. God even gave man the prerogative of naming the creatures that God had created so that “whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof” (Gen. 2:19-20).
Following the Fall, however, human nature radically changed. We all became sinners, alienated from God and prone to using our God-given abilities to glorify ourselves rather than God. One of the aspects of our humanity that was affected by the Fall was speech. Man is now using the verbal abilities given to him by God for evil purposes. Jesus said, “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34 ).
After being saved individuals come to have the choice of how they are going to use their verbal skills—either to honor God and be a blessing to others, or to dishonor God and communicate words that hurt, cut, wound and corrupt. Hence, Christians are given directives regarding the proper use of their gift of speech:
“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29).
“Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks” (Eph. 5:4).
The psalmist was desirous of pleasing God in every area of his life. He made this a matter of prayer: “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD” (Ps. 19:14 ).
A Question To Ponder
The Bible tells us that we are to use our mouths and our writing skills for the glory of God, but some people believe that the First Amendment grants them the liberty to pollute minds with profanity. They claim that cursing, off-color jokes and raunchy stories are all, supposedly, protected by the Constitution. Does this mean that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is somehow un-Christian?
Before we can answer this question we need to make sure that we know what the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech it does not protect all speech. For example, no one is free to go into a crowded theater and shout “Fire!” the results of which could lead to a stampede of people, some of whom might be crushed. Moreover, no one is free to publicly make false statements, especially those that would injure the reputation and character of an individual. There are two terms which define this:
Libel – “A malicious writing or representation which brings its object into contempt or exposes him to public derision.”
Slander – “A false report maliciously uttered, and tending to injure the reputation of another” (New Webster’s Dictionary).
There are obviously some limitations to First Amendment rights. But is profanity protected? And how about lewd language that might go under the guise of “art”? And what about the overt vulgarity that was shoved under the noses of millions of viewers during half time of the recent Super Bowl Game when pop star Justin Timberlake popped off part of Janet Jackson’s attire revealing what should not be publicly revealed?
In order to answer these questions we have to look at the intent of the First Amendment. When, for example, rock star Bono said on NBC television that it was“_____ brilliant” that he received the Golden Globe Awards was it the intent of the framers to protect that kind of speech?
What The First Amendment Guarantees
The First Amendment primarily guarantees religious liberty. It was never intended to be an encouragement to public indecency in speech or behavior. Without the First Amendment religious minorities could be harassed for uttering their views, protesters could be silenced, the press could not take issue with the government, and citizens could not voice their concerns in matters of national interest. Smutty language uttered by irresponsible individuals is not in this category. The purveyors of public filth have completely ignored the purpose of the First Amendment in their efforts to get “Constitutional backing” for their debased ideas.
Does The Constitution Establish Secularism?
The Constitution was never intended to support secularism and cannot be legitimately used to remove Christian standards from society. “But doesn’t the Constitution teach that there is to be a separation of church and state?” people often ask.
These words, however, are not found in the U.S. Constitution.. The phrase “the wall of separation” comes not from the First Amendment but from the pen of Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Jefferson was not a member of the Congress that passed the First Amendment, nor of any state legislature that ratified it. Jefferson had to rely on second-hand information to learn what happened in Congress, something that shows that Jefferson ’s comments in this letter are not the result of first-hand reflection (William J. Federer, America’s God And Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations, p. 325).
The Constitution guards against the national establishment of an official state church, but in no way seeks to remove God from the public arena. In fact, from its inception America has publicly acknowledged its dependence on God. Congress has regularly employed chaplain to open its session with prayer and to give religious counsel to its members. The Supreme Court prominently displays a depiction of the Ten Commandments on its walls, and the President takes the Oath of Office with his hand upon a Bible. U.S. Presidents have historically called for days of thanksgiving to God and national prayer. Prior to 1890 the federal government contributed endorsement, support and tax dollars to Christian missionary agencies engaged in the evangelization and education of Native Americans.
Unfortunately, many Christians think that the U.S. Constitution was framed so as to create a secular society. Even some pastors are chirping that we should keep God out of government. Maybe we should start keeping faithfulness out of marriage and muscles out of weightlifting.
God No Threat To Civil Liberties
Proponents of the view that the First Amendment allows a broad range of speech and language claim that to impose Christian standards on speech is to threaten the civil liberties of every American. However, it is the strangest of all notions that God must be banished from American life because He is some kind of a threat to our people and their civil liberties.
The Founding Fathers believed, quite correctly, that there could be no civil liberties in the absence of Divine standards. They conceived of a nation in which government has only limited authority. The citizens have rights which originated with God. Since our rights were not created by the government the government can not take them away or abridge them in any way. The government’s responsibility is to support and defend these rights.
While the secular humanist would deny any place to God in government in so doing the secular humanist denies the source of the government’s limitations. If the government refuses to submit to God and His authority it is not bound to respect the limits God has placed on its authority. Government then can easily become a despot with no limits on its authority because it conceives of itself as the highest authority. This is a sure formula for tyranny. The present trend to sever the First Amendment from its original Christian roots is not, therefore, a new expression of liberty but rather another step toward the demise of liberty.
We Are Responsible For Our Influence
Can Christians claim “freedom of speech” in a completely unrestricted sense, or are there some issues with which we must reckon?
Scripture teaches that every individual is responsible for his or her influence on others. Jesus said, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6). The word “offend” is a translation of the word skandalizo and refers to placing in the path of one “of these little ones” an enticement to do sin and to do wrong.
The “millstone” to which Jesus refers is the top stone of the two between which grain was crushed. In the middle of this uppermost stone was a hole through which grain was poured so as to be crushed between the stones. This hole would allow a rope to be passed through so that the millstone could be hung from the offender’s neck. Jesus underscores the horrible nature of this person’s punishment by stating that he would be drowned “in the depth of the sea”—water so deep that the offender could not prop himself up by standing on the bottom. This person’s gruesome death is guaranteed.
One cannot real this verse without experiencing a sense of horror at the doom of those who have been responsible for all of the corrupting trash on the television and in the media.
The misapplication of the First Amendment to crude speech and behavior is symptomatic of the “dumbing down” of our nation’s moral standards. What could be more persuasive than bringing in anti-Christian moral values in the name of Constitutional rights? Confused by the proliferation of relativism, along with a secular world-and-life view, many professing Christians are being led to believe that supporting godlessness is the way to support freedom. It is imperative that Christians in America know their Bibles as well as their nation’s Christian heritage so that they will not fall prey to such erroneous thinking.
“But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 17-21).
Copyright 1997-2002 by Southwest Radio Church Ministries. All Rights Reserved.
Southwest Radio Church, PO Box 100, Bethany, OK 73008
WATS Line: 800-652-1144
Local Phone: 405-789-1222
FAX: 405-787-2589
Email: info@swrc.com
Page Updated: 02/11/2004
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Yes, that is the wee little book that he speaks of in this last letter that I printed. He removed all the miracles from the gospels as he felt them to be misrepresentations of Paltonic thought that had been added in by the gospel writers and did not really happen; He thought very highly of his work as you can see from the letter above and thought that it deserved a place among the Greek texts.
But what does this say of the agenda of those like D James Kennedy who quote snipits of his writings in an effort to forward their political agenda? Surely, Doctor Kennedy has read the Jefferson Letters from which these quotes he tauts come, though it seems that he is banking on the idea that the average Christian has not read them.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
If you want to know how Jefferson really perceived Christianity, then read his version of the Bible. Yes, Tom took it upon himself to re-write the Bible and if you read it, you will see that Jefferson had a very different idea of what Christianity, and indeed religion, meant, not just to the person, but to the Republic.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Yes, Sister Bat Elohim, Jefferson wrote of and believed that the illuminati was begun on the principles of discipleship of Christ.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Lastly, I will leave you with the context in which Jeffersons proclaimed "I am a real Christian"
"A REAL CHRISTIAN"
To Charles Thomson
Monticello, January 9, 1816
MY DEAR AND ANCIENT FRIEND, -- An acquaintance of fifty- two years, for I think ours dates from 1764, calls for an interchange of notice now and then, that we remain in existence, the monuments of another age, and examples of a friendship unaffected by the jarring elements by which we have been surrounded, of revolutions of government, of party and of opinion. I am reminded of this duty by the receipt, through our friend Dr. Patterson, of your synopsis of the four Evangelists.
I had procured it as soon as I saw it advertised, and had become familiar with its use; but this copy is the more valued as it comes from your hand.
This work bears the stamp of that accuracy which marks everything from you, and will be useful to those who, not taking things on trust, recur for themselves to the fountain of pure morals.
I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject.
A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.
They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.
If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.
I retain good health, am rather feeble to walk much, but ride with ease, passing two or three hours a day on horseback, and every three or four months taking in a carriage a journey of ninety miles to a distant possession, where I pass a good deal of my time. My eyes need the aid of glasses by night, and with small print in the day also; my hearing is not quite so sensible as it used to be; no tooth shaking yet, but shivering and shrinking in body from the cold we now experience, my thermometer having been as low as 12x this morning. My greatest oppression is a correspondence afflictingly laborious, the extent of which have been long endeavoring to curtail. This keeps me at the drudgery of the writing-table all the prime hours of the day, leaving for the gratification of my appetite for reading, only what I can steal from the hours of sleep. Could I reduce this epistolary corve within the limits of my friends and affairs, and give the time redeemed from it to reading and reflection, to history, ethics, mathematics, my life would be as happy as the infirmities of age would admit, and I should look on its consummation with the composure of one "qui summum nec me tuit diem nec optat."
So much as to myself, and I have given you this string of egotisms in the hope of drawing a similar one from yourself. I have heard from others that you retain your health, a good degree of activity, and all the vivacity and cheerfulness of your mind, but I wish to learn it more minutely from yourself. How has time affected your health and spirits? What are your amusements, literary and social? Tell me everything about yourself, because all will be interesting to me who retains for you ever the same constant and affectionate friendship and respect.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bat Elohim
Advanced Member
Member # 3739
|
posted
From reading those letters, I have found several parts in there that are direct quotes from some masonic rituals. that or the rituals were written quoting him, I do not know.
Jefferson was a 33rd degree mason. His letters sum up the basic beliefs of the masonic lodge.
Washington, Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and many others were also masons. Most of the presidents since that time were also masons.
--------------------
Numbers 6:24 May ADONAI bless you and keep you. 25 May ADONAI make his face shine on you and show you his favor. 26 May ADONAI lift up his face toward you and give you peace.
Posts: 704 | From: Louisiana | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I emplore you to read Jeffersons comments in bold here on OUR LORD JESUS. D James Kennedy is deceptive in his use of Jeffersons comments. He does not tell the whole story.
Jefferson saw Jesus as a great man, a great reformer... not The SON OF THE LIVING GOD - GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.
JESUS AND THE JEWS
To William Short
Monticello, August 4, 1820
DEAR SIR, -- I owe you a letter for your favor of June the 29th, which was received in due time; and there being no subject of the day, of particular interest, I will make this a supplement to mine of April the 13th. My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian. When Livy and Siculus, for example, tell us things which coincide with our experience of the order of nature, we credit them on their word, and place their narrations among the records of credible history. But when they tell us of calves speaking, of statues sweating blood, and other things against the course of nature, we reject these as fables not belonging to history. In like manner, when an historian, speaking of a character well known and established on satisfactory testimony, imputes to it things incompatible with that character, we reject them without hesitation, and assent to that only of which we have better evidence. Had Plutarch informed us that Caesar and Cicero passed their whole lives in religious exercises, and abstinence from the affairs of the world, we should reject what was so inconsistent with their established characters, still crediting what he relates in conformity with our ideas of them. So again, the superlative wisdom of Socrates is testified by all antiquity, and placed on ground not to be questioned. When, therefore, Plato puts into his mouth such paralogisms, such quibbles on words, and sophisms, as a school boy would be ashamed of, we conclude they were the whimsies of Plato's own foggy brain, and acquit Socrates of puerilities so unlike his character. (Speaking of Plato, I will add, that no writer, antient or modern, has bewildered the world with more ignes fatui, than this renowned philosopher, in Ethics, in Politics and Physics. In the latter, to specify a single example, compare his views of the animal economy, in his Timaeus, with those of Mrs. Bryan in her Conversations on Chemistry, and weigh the science of the canonised philosopher against the good sense of the unassuming lady. But Plato's visions have furnished a basis for endless systems of mystical theology, and he is therefore all but adopted as a Christian saint. It is surely time for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority of names so artificially magnified. But to return from this parenthasis.) say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They shew that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands. Can we be at a loss in separating such materials, and ascribing each to its genuine author? The difference is obvious to the eye and to
the understanding, and we may read as we run to each his part; and I will venture to affirm, that he who, as I have done, will undertake to winnow this grain from its chaff, will find it not to require a moment's consideration. The parts fall asunder of themselves, as would those of an image of metal and clay.
There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance. The one instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit towards other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence. The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion: and a step to right or left might place him within the gripe of the priests of the superstition, a blood thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel.
They were constantly laying snares, too, to entangle him in the web of the law. He was justifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, by misconstructions and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, and in defending himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient, ad homines, at least.
That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of
men more learned than myself in that lore.
But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jews, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration.
The fumes of the most disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications of the Deity; and as it could not but happen that, in the course of ages, events would now and then turn up to which some of these vague rhapsodies might be accommodated by the aid of allegories, figures, types, and other tricks upon words, they have not only preserved their credit with the Jews of all subsequent times, but are the foundation of much of the religions of those who have schismatised from them.
Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pure heart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not been taught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own fine genius for inspirations of an higher order. This belief carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Daemon.
And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of these inspirations, while perfectly sane on all other subjects. Excusing, therefore, on these considerations, those passages in the gospels which seem to bear marks of weakness in Jesus, ascribing to him what alone is consistent with the great and pure character of which the same writings furnish proofs, and to their proper authors their own trivialities and imbecilities, I think myself authorised to conclude the purity and distinction of his character, in opposition to the impostures which those authors would fix upon him; and that the postulate of my former letter is no more than is granted in all other historical works.
Mr. Correa is here, on his farewell visit to us. He has been much pleased with the plan and progress of our University, and has given some valuable hints to its botanical branch. He goes to do, I hope, much good in his new country; the public instruction there, as I understand, being within the department destined for him. He is not without dissatisfaction, and reasonable dissatisfaction too, with the piracies of Baltimore; but his justice and friendly dispositions will, I am sure, distinguish between the iniquities of a few plunderers, and the sound principles of our country at large, and of our government especially. From many conversations with him, I hope he sees, and will promote in his new situation, the advantages of a cordial fraternization among all the American nations, and the importance of their coalescing in an American system of policy, totally independent of, and unconnected with that of Europe. The day is not distant, when we may formally require a meridian of partition through the ocean which separates the two hemispheres, on the hither side of which no European gun shall ever be heard, nor an American on the other; and when, during the rage of the eternal wars of Europe, the lion and the lamb, within our regions, shall lie down together in peace. The excess of population in Europe and want of room, render war, in their opinion, necessary to keep down that excess of numbers. Here, room is abundant, population scanty, and peace the necessary means for producing men, to whom the redundant soil is offering the means of life and happiness. The principles of society there and here, then, are radically different, and I hope no American patriot will ever lose sight of the essential policy of interdicting in the seas and territories of both Americas, the ferocious and sanguinary contests of Europe. I wish to see this coalition begun. I am earnest for an agreement with the maritime powers of Europe, assigning them the task of keeping down the piracies of their seas and the cannibalisms of the African coasts, and to us, the suppression of the same enormities within our seas: and for this purpose, I should rejoice to see the fleets of Brazil and the United States riding together as brethren of the same family, and pursuing the same object. And indeed it would be of happy augury to begin at once this concert of action here, on the invitation of either to the other government, while the way might be preparing for withdrawing our cruisers from Europe, and preventing naval collisions there which daily endanger our peace.
Turning to another part of your letter, I do not think the obstacles insuperable which you state as opposed to your visit to us. From one of the persons mentioned, I never heard a sentiment but of esteem for you and I am certain you would be recieved with kindness and cordiality. But still the call may be omitted without notice. The mountain lies between his
residence and the main road, and occludes the expectation of transient visits. I am equally ignorant of any dispositions not substantially friendly to you in the other person. But the alibi there gives you ten free months in the year. But if the visit is to be but once in your life, I would suppress my impatience and consent it should be made a year or two hence. Because, by that time our University will be compleate and in full action: and you would recieve the satisfaction, in the final adieu to your native state, of seeing that she would retain her equal standing in the sisterhood of our republics. However, come now, come then, or come when you please, your visit will give me the gratification feel in every opportunity of proving to you the sincerity of my friendship and respect for you.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Sounds very interesting. I gotta go now thou. 18 inces of snow on the ground and still snowing. Got to get the 8N fired up and start clearing the drive.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Here is the letter from which the quote you posted above came... "the doctrines of Jesus are simple"
A UNITARIAN CREED
To Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse
Monticello, June 26, 1822
DEAR SIR, -- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion. These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.
Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily
I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.
But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re- established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Those are his letters Wildb. They are from his achives at the University of Virgina. He did not believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. He did believe that Jesus was a man; abeit, the most perfect man that ever lived.
He believed that those who believed that Jesus was God were perverting Christianity... this is what he meant by "real" Christian.
I will look for that letter.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Meet the Real Thomas Jefferson...
We'll give you a clue, he did the following:
o He attended religious services in the Capitol Building (and such services were also held in the Supreme Court building).
o He favored using the word "God" in the national motto.
o He granted land, buildings, and salaries for clergy teaching in Indian schools.
o Supported the use of the Bible as reading materials in such schools.
o He personally prayed at public events.
o Exempted churches from taxation.
o In 1801, he wrote that "the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which [the clergy] have enveloped it, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and freest expansion of the human mind."
Still don't know who he is? Here's more clues, he said the following:
“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”[Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]
Very importantly this person admitted:
“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]
Still trying to guess? The person described and pictured above is none other than President Thomas Jefferson (besides, the caption above his picture reads, "Meet the Real Thomas Jefferson"). That's right despite all the lies and propaganda you hear today he indeed admitted that he was a Christian. Here's proof:
From the ACLU, to the fundy atheists, to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, to the secular schools and universities, to the left-wing presses, Thomas Jefferson has been used and described as a deist who advocated the separation of church and state. After all, he coined the phrase "separation of church and state." President Jefferson is possibly the most sited person by secularists. They all say he wanted a non-religious country/government/society. Not true! Here's an article by D. James Kennedy:
Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian?
Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, was a skeptic, a man so hostile to Christianity that he scissored from his Bible all references to miracles. He was, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation tells us, "a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural."
Or was he? While Jefferson has been lionized by those who seek to drive religion from public life, the true Thomas Jefferson is anything but their friend. He was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes.
Moreover, his "Notes on Religion," nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are "very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ," according to Mark Beliles, a Providence Foundation scholar and author of an enlightening essay on Jefferson's religious life.
So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.
Jefferson, who gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believed his "abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians" would help civilize and educate America's aboriginal inhabitants. Nor did Jefferson cut all miracles from his work, as Beliles points out. While the original manuscript no longer exists, the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ's healings.
But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?
Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen … religious freedom."
Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Nonetheless, Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.
Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated an official document. Instead of "in the year of our Lord," Jefferson used the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Christian historian David Barton has the proof – the original document signed by Jefferson on the "eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804."
The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Judging from the record, it looks like the wall some say Tom built is, in fact, the wall Tom breached.
The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU's worst nightmare.
"Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian?" by D. James Kennedy.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I do not know if this is a good place for this post or not; but I thought it might make for interesting discussion.
In our personal life we (Hal & I) have learned to proceed with caution when discussing "Christianity" finding that just because we share commmon terms of speach with someone does not mean that we share common meanings of speach. We both have had opportunity in this life to have crossed paths with a diverisity of persons - Mormons, JW, Wiccans, and moslims, and we have found that Jesus is different things to different people. We know Mormons who are by their own profession Christians, but their beliefs about Christ, who and what HE is are very different than ours.
Today, there is a movement within certain "Christian" circles to "Restore America's Christian Heritage".
So, I ask what is America's "Christian" Heritage?
Certainly, many of the founders were Christian. At the very least by their own professions, but what did that mean to them is the qestion. Did "Christian" have the same meaning for Washington as for Jefferson? What about Madison?
I have not read all of the writings of all of the founders, but I have read a lot of Jefferson's writings and I will post some of them here and open this up for discussion if any one is interested.
Some of the questions that I would ask are...
Are we today ONE NATION under GOD?
Have we ever truly been?
Was this something that GOD desired us to be?
If we claim to be and are not, what are the ramifications of such a claim in the eyes of God?
I am sure there are many more questions that could be posed, but this is a start.
This is Jefferson: If Jeferson is a Christian, and he does say that he is... is this the kind of Christian you would seek to be? Would you be comfortable with Jefferson's idea of "Christian"? In other words, Would you say that you have UNITY OF FAITH, with Jefferson?
JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Apr. 9, 1803
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. I have not heard particularly what is the state of your health; but as it has been equal to the journey to Philadelphia, perhaps it might encourage the curiosity you must feel to see for once this place, which nature has formed on a beautiful scale, and circumstances destine for a great one. As yet we are but a cluster of villages; we cannot offer you the learned society of Philadelphia; but you will have that of a few characters whom you esteem, & a bed & hearty welcome with one who will rejoice in every opportunity of testifying to you his high veneration & affectionate attachment.
THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 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 ofmy 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 the 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.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
