Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jefferson's Bible
LA Times ^ | 1-8-12 | Craig Ferhman

Posted on 01/09/2012 7:39:35 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic

Rick Santorum's near-miss in Iowa provides a reminder that, for many Republican voters (and not a few candidates), religion and politics overlap. If you need another reminder, though, consider this: recently, the Smithsonian has restored and put on display a weird and fantastic 19th century book known as "The Jefferson Bible." That's Jefferson as in Thomas, and this private, personal document offers a useful case study in how politics and Christianity have mixed it up in American history, right up to today.

To understand Jefferson's Bible, you need to start with the one book he published in his lifetime: "Notes on the State of Virginia." Jefferson wrote this survey in the 1780s, organizing it around topics like "The different religions received into that State." But the book came back to haunt him two decades later when he was battling John Adams for the presidency. Indeed, long before Rick Perry's and Mitt Romney's books caused them trouble on the campaign trail, Jefferson had to deal with some very specific attacks on what he'd written about religion.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: barton; cutandpaste; gagdadbob; godsgravesglyphs; history; jefferson; jpholding; onecosmosblog; presidents; religion; santorum; smithsonian; tektonics

The Smithsonian has restored and put on display a 19th century book known as "The Jefferson Bible." (Courtesy of the Smithsonian)

Before everyone gets in a tizzy over this article, please do everyone a favor and read the whole thing. It's interesting how this author throws rocks at David Barton.

1 posted on 01/09/2012 7:39:41 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
After years of reviewing Jefferson, you find that he constantly acts as his own antagonist...and HOLDS two views on every subject.

Slavery is bad but I have slaves is probably the most visible.

2 posted on 01/09/2012 7:47:11 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I heard Santorum wants to make Latin the official language.


3 posted on 01/09/2012 7:47:11 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
A lot more than “throw rocks”, he outright accuses him of inventing an occurrence in history - the cardinal sin of historians - in claiming Jefferson gave his “Jefferson's Bible” to missionaries for Indians.
4 posted on 01/09/2012 7:49:53 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Exactly -

HOLDS two views on every subject.

That's why I roll my eyes when someone uses a Jefferson quote to support their point.

But in Jefferson's defense, he wrote voluminously about everything under the son for 50 years so it's not surprising his thinking evolves over time.

5 posted on 01/09/2012 7:50:32 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I notice I wrote “everything under the son”. Interesting slip.


6 posted on 01/09/2012 7:51:56 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
le to anyone who wants to fashion Jefferson as a hero for right-leaning Christians

The left don't like their version of history being challenged.

7 posted on 01/09/2012 7:59:47 AM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
From the article:

Today, the facts about "The Jefferson Bible" might seem like an impossible obstacle to anyone who wants to fashion Jefferson as a hero for right-leaning Christians — and America as a "Christian nation." Instead, the book has been distorted to fit the religious right's agenda.

The author of this article has some major issues with David Barton and organized religion in general ...

8 posted on 01/09/2012 7:59:55 AM PST by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

He didn’t hold two views on the Book of Revealations. He held one consistent view on that part of the Bible, and it’s not one the fundamentalists will appreciate.


9 posted on 01/09/2012 7:59:55 AM PST by E Rocc (November 2, 2010: The beginning of the end of the kleptocracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I find it difficult to see why Tom would go to all this trouble.

If the “non-rational” parts of the Gospels are untrue, what reason is there to believe the remaining parts bear any relationship to what actually happened?

I’ve read several bios of Tom, and there’s little doubt he was not either an atheist or a Christian in the traditional sense.

He was quite devout in the Church of Tom, where Tom decided what was true and what wasn’t. A kind of megalomania, IMO.


10 posted on 01/09/2012 8:01:13 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

It is entirely appropriate to have major issues with David Barton.


11 posted on 01/09/2012 8:02:22 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

As for Barton, he has a habit of having to take back things he said. Google his name and “unconfirmed quotations”.


12 posted on 01/09/2012 8:03:05 AM PST by E Rocc (November 2, 2010: The beginning of the end of the kleptocracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Better than ebonics!


13 posted on 01/09/2012 8:06:53 AM PST by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
"He didn’t hold two views on the Book of Revealations. He held one consistent view on that part of the Bible, and it’s not one the fundamentalists will appreciate."

First off, there is no book of "RevelationS". Second, there is no generally accepted view of eschatology held among conservative Protestant Christians. (I have no idea what the word "fundamentalists" means in the context of your post.)

14 posted on 01/09/2012 8:18:43 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
He didn’t hold two views on the Book of Revealations. He held one consistent view on that part of the Bible, and it’s not one the fundamentalists will appreciate.

Given that Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the virgin birth, etc, etc I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who have issues with Jefferson.

15 posted on 01/09/2012 8:22:39 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
You wrote: ""He was quite devout in the Church of Tom, where Tom decided what was true and what wasn’t. A kind of megalomania, IMO."

I'm SURE you're one of the exceptions./s

"In a sense, we each form our own canon of acceptable ideas; we each have our own "apocrypha" of marginal thoughts, and our own collection of ideas which we discard into the void, dismissing them from our canon of thought entirely." "One man saw another sitting at the table with a Bible, pen in hand. He was using the pen to make a series of horizontal lines in the Bible's text.

"Underlining your favorite verses?" the first man asked cheerfully.

"Nope," the man with the pen replied. "I'm crossing out the parts that don't apply to me!"

".....The basic claims of Christianity are still there, canon or no canon.

The anecdote above, indeed, reveals the pointlessness of arguing about the canon. The tendency towards syncretism, and the application of personally-preferred truths to the minimization of those found less comfortable, is inescapable, especially in our modern, post-modern environment. Whether God had a hand in the selection and forming of the canon, or whether it was just a random assortment thrown together by the winds of history, the result will be the same: There will always be those, believer and non-believer alike, who will take mental pen in hand and "cross out" the parts of the Bible (or any set of ideas, for that matter) that they find uncomfortable, or add on things that will personally give them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. ...."

HERE

16 posted on 01/09/2012 8:27:03 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Exactly. Jefferson was no Christian. He was a Deist. And his views on the “separation of church and state” have confused and complicated many away from the true intent of our Constitution.

His “Bible” is representative of his political views as well.

False and incomplete.


17 posted on 01/09/2012 8:30:37 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS! This means liberals AND libertarians (same thing) NO LIBS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I do not understand why “ fundamenalists” or whatever people feel the need to believe enrything literally.

As TJ pointed out the basic message of Jesus and Christianity are remarkable enough.
I enjoyed the article and I think Jefferson was closer to Christian than atheist.


18 posted on 01/09/2012 8:33:47 AM PST by RWGinger (Simpl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

I quite agree.

However I personally try to adapt my opinions to what I perceive the Bible as teaching, rather than the other way around.

No doubt I fail to fully implement this, and deceive myself that I’m doing so when I’m not.

OTOH, I’ve never sat down and cut out parts of the Bible that I dislike.

Possibly Tom was just more honest with himself than I am. But I don’t think so.

Tom was a very interesting guy, and had many more unpleasant aspects to his character than is the common perception among Americans.


19 posted on 01/09/2012 8:33:59 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
he outright accuses him of inventing an occurrence in history - the cardinal sin of historians -

Doris Kearns Goodwin has risen above that bar and rehabilitated herself. Oh, yes. That was just plagiarism she was found guilty of -- not wholesale invention.

20 posted on 01/09/2012 8:39:46 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

I had never heard of the Jefferson Bible until my fiercely Calvinistic coworker asked me if I knew what it was (I’m Catholic and therefore presumed ignorant about Scripture).

He informed me that it is the standard Bible printed in pencil (?) so that Tom could easily excise those passages he thought inapplicable or illogical. My coworker also claimed he could beat Pope Benedict XVI in a debate about Christian doctrine and if I would pony up a ticket to Rome, he would make it happen!

Oh, and he doesn’t observe Christmas and his kids don’t get any gifts.

So glad I’m retired.....


21 posted on 01/09/2012 8:41:48 AM PST by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

You wrote: “The left don’t like their version of history being challenged.”

True.

“Thomas Jefferson, religious freak” by James Freeman - USA Today July 10, 2000
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/freeman/ncjf81.htm

On July Fourth, we celebrated the 224th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. This great document, of course, is not the law of the land. The Constitution, created in 1787, gives us the rules we live by. But it’s hard to overstate the importance of Thomas Jefferson’s brilliant work, which was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776. The Declaration created the United States of America. It also explained why we were free to abandon British rule and articulated many of the basic principles that would later be expressed in our Constitution, such as government by the people and the right of trial by jury.

So what gave us the right to start our own country? Where did we get off saying that the people should rule instead of a king or a parliament representing the richest men of the country? How could we claim a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Where did our rights come from? Well, according to TJ and the guys who voted to start a new nation in 1776, they came from the man upstairs. That was the whole justification for the rebellion: Our rights came from God, not from the British crown, so it was up to us what kind of government we wanted to recognize. If you could sum up Jefferson’s political views in one sentence, you would say: He believed that God and reason allow people to rule themselves.

As we reflect on the Fourth of July and recent cases in which the Supreme Court has tried to decide how much religion to allow in our public institutions, it’s worth considering the opinions of the man who, as much as anyone, is responsible for the creation of the USA. And based on the standards of our time, I think you have to say that Thomas Jefferson was a religious nut. I’m not just talking about the first two paragraphs of the Declaration, although they do make the point:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. …”

Jefferson was a big believer in religious liberty, but he certainly wasn’t shy about mentioning God in official proceedings. In the final paragraph of the Declaration (available at http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm), Jefferson asks twice for God’s help in creating the country. And the Declaration was not the only work of Jefferson’s in which he gave credit to a higher power.

Appropriately enough, the University of Virginia maintains several excellent Web sites about its “father” and chief architect. One of my favorites (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/) includes this quotation from 1774: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” In his Notes on Virginia of 1782, Jefferson writes: “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 of the gift of God?”

So, by modern standards, this guy sure seems as if he’s a Bible-thumping fruitcake. And one great thing about the USA is that you’re free to call him a Bible-thumping fruitcake. Jefferson would definitely approve. On his tombstone he wanted it recorded that he wrote the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.

Still, if you toss out his religious faith, that does leave a pretty big hole in his philosophy and a difficult question for us: Where do our rights come from? Jefferson’s crazy religious ideas, shared by crazy representatives from 13 crazy colonies, are the reason we have a United States and the reason that We the People are in charge.


22 posted on 01/09/2012 8:42:16 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DManA
I heard Santorum wants to make Latin the official language.

Of what? The Catholic church?

23 posted on 01/09/2012 8:43:23 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
What Jefferson thinks or doesn't think about the Bible seems irrelevant to me. Why not discuss what Washington, or Adams thinks? There is no evidence that Jefferson was an atheist, but many portray him to be as he didn't fall into every slot made to prove his faith. Franklin also had the same label pasted on him and there ate many quotes showing otherwise for him.

I'm sure that a religious person today could look at any of our lives and make comments showing we couldn't be "born again" Christians or we wouldn't have done or said this and that. There are just as many evidences of Jefferson using Scripture as "cutting" it out of the Bible. Many of the monuments he designed had Bible quotes on them.

The founders had many pastors as signers of the documents and almost all were describes as "devout" in early documents. Glomming on to a modified Bible from Jefferson seems a little desperate to make an irrelevant point. America was formed as a "Christian" nation, but didn't require you to profess it. That was a breakthrough for people that had been forced to bow and kiss a ring to remain breathing.

I'm sure, Jefferson, thinking himself wise, became a fool. If you are going to believe Jesus was the sacrificial Son of God, sent to die for your sins, what would be so difficult about a "virgin birth" or rising from the dead? If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then how can I count on Him to save me? Can a man walk on water or can God walk on water, and even fly into the clouds? He is either God or not. I'm sure that was the conflict he had much of his life. It is what all of us at some point has to decide. If God can create the universe and humans, why could he not fix their sin and be family with Him? God is quite a concept and is difficult for some. I too was a skeptic until the age of 43, and then God made Himself know to me in a manor that was undeniable for myself. it is easy for me to look as foolish as need be for my Savior after what he has shown me. But for someone else, it may not suffice.

24 posted on 01/09/2012 8:44:00 AM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I heard Santorum wants to make Latin the official language.

HAHA. Actually it would be a fantastic idea to require all students to learn Latin as it will improve their English. But let’s not try something to improve anything. That would be so against status quo.


25 posted on 01/09/2012 8:45:28 AM PST by napscoordinator (Go Rick! Go Rick! Go Newt! Let's get 'er done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Oh, I could beat the Pope in a debate too if you send me a ticket to Rome. Of course, we’d have to agree that I wouldn’t have to pay you back after I lost! LOL.


26 posted on 01/09/2012 8:49:33 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Going with the “other historians were plagiarists” defense of David Barton's invention of a historic event that evidently never happened?

David Barton has a very troubling history of doing exactly that sort of thing.

That other historians have done wrong doesn't excuse his own lies and inventions.

That is like saying counterfeiting money is OK because other people have done so previously.

27 posted on 01/09/2012 8:55:37 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I heard it on Beck and yes it was a joke.


28 posted on 01/09/2012 9:07:38 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Tom was a very interesting guy, and had many more unpleasant aspects to his character than is the common perception among Americans.

True, but I'll forgive him much given his penning of the Declaration of Independence, a document that will far outlast the united States of America.

29 posted on 01/09/2012 9:08:54 AM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
"My coworker also claimed he could beat Pope Benedict XVI in a debate about Christian doctrine and if I would pony up a ticket to Rome, he would make it happen!"

He would LOSE, big time. bttt

He sounds like the typical fundie/literalist (who reads the newspaper with one hand and the Bible with the other)--holding as one of his so-called 'truths', that the pope is the "Anti-Christ riding on the "Beast of Revelation". Cough, cough.

<>

Excerpts From Pacem In Terris: Peace on Earth

Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963

"Man's personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.

In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.

Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.

There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.

Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man's progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom."

"Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.

And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings."

"Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since 'it is right to obey God rather than men.'"

<>////////////<>

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Rights of Conscience is the foundation of American Politics.

For our founders, one man’s liberty did not rest upon another man’s conscience. Each citizen had the right to program his conscience according to the standards he felt were true and to live his life as his conscience dictated in his pursuit for happiness. Again Blackstone speaks on the subject of pursuing happiness.

"For he (God) has so intimately connected, so inseparably inter-woven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannnot but induce the latter."

...As believers, they believed that they had a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of their fellow Americans against all tyranny and that each citizen should have the right as a priest [the scriptural teaching of "the priesthood of the believer"] to pursue happiness according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Many Christians in America were worried at the time when the U.S. Constitution was passed and feared that their right to let God govern their conscience might be replaced by the authority given to Congress as the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Thomas Jefferson was aware of their concerns and wrote the following:

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries..." (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809).

In America, one man’s liberty is not dependent upon another man’s conscience!

INTRODUCTION TO THE LIBERTY PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN POLITICS

30 posted on 01/09/2012 9:13:32 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I own a modern printing of this publication. It is not a “Bible”. It is a little book, a collection of extracts from the four gospels.


31 posted on 01/09/2012 9:14:11 AM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

“Actually it would be a fantastic idea to require all students to learn Latin as it will improve their English. But let’s not try something to improve anything. That would be so against status quo.”

A century ago or so Latin AND classical Greek were mandatory subjects in college; when James Madison penned the Federalist Papers, John Adams observed that his colleague could have written them in Greek, Latin, or English.

Not a century ago I had to take Latin, in a public high school no less. Also studied Latin in Catholic high school. As a result I am considerably more conversant in writing and speaking English, of this I have no doubt.

Of course, Santorum is now a “papist” who wants to push the language of the Vatican. Works for me.

Dominus vobiscum, y’all.


32 posted on 01/09/2012 9:22:15 AM PST by elcid1970 ("Deport all Muslims. Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

I agree 100%.

Tom, despite his many flaws, was probably the greatest writer of political rhetoric in all history.


33 posted on 01/09/2012 9:22:38 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
If you are going to believe Jesus was the sacrificial Son of God, sent to die for your sins, what would be so difficult about a "virgin birth" or rising from the dead?

Ahh, but Jefferson did NOT believe Jesus was God or the Son of God.

If that is your definition of Christian, Tom wasn't one.

34 posted on 01/09/2012 9:27:52 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"I quite agree. ....I personally try to adapt my opinions to what I perceive the Bible as teaching, rather than the other way around. No doubt I fail to fully implement this, and deceive myself that I’m doing so when I’m not."

The secret is to realize that we have all been "indoctrinated" and hold religious beliefs that may or may not be "Truth" at all. Been there, done that. :)

"....."truth" and "liberty" in the abstract are much closer to God than any specific formulation. For one thing, truth is only possible if it is freely discovered, so it must be prior to doctrine. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Co 3:17). (I might add that freedom is only possible if it converges upon truth, otherwise it is just meaningless horizontal drifting, AKA the Left.)

35 posted on 01/09/2012 9:28:22 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

As a historian, David Barton is the equivalent of the person who posts every rumor they hear that they hope/wish to be true on their Facebook page.


36 posted on 01/09/2012 9:43:58 AM PST by E Rocc (November 2, 2010: The beginning of the end of the kleptocracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Barton is the non-religious left’s biggest nightmare.


37 posted on 01/09/2012 9:52:21 AM PST by CainConservative (Newt/Santorum 2012 with Cain, Huck, Bolton, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Bachmann in Newt's Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

LOL, yes, and even when called out on something that is completely unconfirmed and likely made up - they insist that it is ‘consistent’ with truth.

I.e. the dramatic robbery in Detroit they talked about with fantastical details was all a hoax, but robberies DO happen in Detroit - so it is all good and ‘consistent’ with what we know about Detroit.


38 posted on 01/09/2012 9:58:27 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Jefferson was no Christian.

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic - LOC

Proposed Seal for the United States
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.

39 posted on 01/09/2012 10:05:46 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Jefferson was no Christian. He was a Deist.”

Of course, Jefferson argued that he was a Christian in the most authentic sense. In an 1816 letter to his friend Charles Thomson, Jefferson wrote: “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus ...”

“And his views on the “separation of church and state” have confused and complicated many away from the true intent of our Constitution.”

Jefferson wanted to separate church and state as much because he feared that the state would corrupt the church as the other way around.


40 posted on 01/09/2012 10:47:29 AM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
thinking back to discussions and readings about Jefferson many years ago, my recollection is that the Jefferson Bible was essentially the New Testament with the miracles clipped out. He had a big time problem with miracles. The remainder included Jesus’ teachings, claims and promises. Jefferson was a believer with conditions.
41 posted on 01/09/2012 10:52:45 AM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
thinking back to discussions and readings about Jefferson many years ago, my recollection is that the Jefferson Bible was essentially the New Testament with the miracles clipped out. He had a big time problem with miracles. The remainder included Jesus’ teachings, claims and promises. Jefferson was a believer with conditions.
42 posted on 01/09/2012 10:53:05 AM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
If you are going to believe Jesus was the sacrificial Son of God, sent to die for your sins, what would be so difficult about a "virgin birth" or rising from the dead? If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then how can I count on Him to save me? Can a man walk on water or can God walk on water, and even fly into the clouds? He is either God or not. I'm sure that was the conflict he had much of his life. It is what all of us at some point has to decide. If God can create the universe and humans, why could he not fix their sin and be family with Him?

God didn't leave us much wiggle room. By his own words, Jesus proclaimed he was "the light, the truth, and the way". Either Jesus was a raving lunatic, or He was who He said He was, God incarnate. If he wasn't the Messiah, his sacrifice was worthless, and his words, merely the ravings of a madman.

I know where I stand on the question, given the impact God has had on my life over the years.

43 posted on 01/09/2012 11:13:21 AM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
I agree with you about the Bible, but I was explaining what Jefferson thought. Jefferson used many Bible verses on his buildings and designs, but history has judged him harshly. I was just saying there are many people with many views and God can judge them, but we shouldn't. I can have an opinion, but cannot judge Jefferson's relationship with God. Some will say Obama is a Christian. I can spout dozens of Scriptures to the contrary, but history will judge as they judge and God will judge as He judges. I've heard it said that we believe as we are given light. I know many people that swear they are Christians, yet will argue to the death over evolution. They will say we have changed from what God created and have lived for billions of years even when Scriptures says the evening and the morning were the first day. Somehow God becomes the liar and they are the wiser. I'm just saying we may not agree with Jefferson, but he had his opinion and expressed it. I've never read where he disavowed God. he just didn't agree with what the Bible said.

We are about to vote into office a person that also disagrees with God and has added to His Word with unproven clap trap. Yet I get scourged for even bringing that up. Either Romney is a believer or not. My opinion is NOT, but many here would argue that he is a great Christian. There is much more to Christianity than not smoking and drinking milk. There are many churches today that are teaching that there was no virgin birth, no resurrection, and no blood sacrifice. I don't agree, but I don't attend church there. I have also met scorn for having anything to say about Joel Osteen. He will proudly say homosexuals will see the Kingdom of God as someone quotes a verse saying they won't. He has a church with tens of thousands, and I peck around on an internet blog. Jefferson was a Founder and president of the country and you and I are conversing on a blog about how they were wrong and we are right. We would probably accomplish more by looking at our own life. I just offer my understanding of Scripture, but try to withhold my opinion of someone's salvation. I can argue against sin, but am not allowed to judge souls. That right belongs to my Lord.

44 posted on 01/09/2012 12:57:59 PM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks afraidfortherepublic.

P, this is the one I'd planned to ping you to, rather than the Charles Martel topic. I zigged when I should have zagged.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


45 posted on 01/09/2012 7:48:38 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Merry Christmas, Happy New Year! May 2013 be even Happier!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

No worry...Charles “The Hammer” is one of my favorite Frenchmen of all time. TJ was not one of my favorites among the Founders...


46 posted on 01/09/2012 8:04:00 PM PST by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt! 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson