Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Armthedillos5 t1_jabhgf3 wrote

He created a new version of the Bible that took out all miracles or mention of supernatural and just left the moral teachings of Jesus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

135

CurrentlyLucid t1_jacgqdp wrote

There is a difference between the religion of Jesus, and the religion about Jesus, he recognized this.

47

Cautious_Mistakes t1_jac8q3n wrote

Legend

12

Armthedillos5 t1_jacbces wrote

Wait til you hear how he made it. He took a razor blade, cut out the parts he wanted and glued it to new paper, ransom note style.

33

gerkletoss t1_jacx5dt wrote

If you just want one copy, that was by far the easiest method at the time.

16

GeorgeLovesBOSCO t1_jadil93 wrote

I imagine he used his collection of letters he cut out of magazines.

2

Jenpayge t1_jadfpww wrote

Gave it to the church and they flipped it and reprinted it as gospel. Amen

0

stouf761 t1_jad2kvr wrote

So basically any of Saul’s letters to the Greeks were cast aside? Good. St. Paul the Bandwagoner did so much damage to Jesus’s legacy in the Church.

8

tsunami141 t1_jadjw0c wrote

He did? How?

2

squamesh t1_jadpdlm wrote

Jesus in the gospels states that all people are equal, you should approach every situation with love, and should basically just dedicate your entire life to helping others. Paul took that and said, “yea definitely, so what you’re saying women should be subservient to men and the church should be organized according to a strict hierarchy. Also gay people are gross”

16

SolDarkHunter t1_jadndau wrote

Let's just say that some Christians take issue with aspects of Paul's writings, and argue that they should be considered his personal opinions (or prejudices) rather than the direct Word of God.

2

Darrone t1_jadou0m wrote

Amazing that a man who owned his own children and knew slavery was wrong (per his own writings) also felt like he could improve religious texts.

2

G20fortified t1_jadqive wrote

I can improve religious texts. Just replace “god” with “your imaginary friend”. Voila prefect

1

HPmoni t1_jadxpuv wrote

Yeah, he was a dick.

There was no abortion back then. There were a lot of biracial people on the plantation. The hypocrisy and slavery were the worst things.

−4

Brilliant_Jewel1924 t1_jaf4p8n wrote

I have a copy of it—it’s a reproduction obviously. It’s very fascinating!

1

snewz404 t1_jacnvp3 wrote

I have this, it’s great. Just sensible.

0

goteamnick t1_jabjgn1 wrote

Such arrogance. The same writers who detailed the moral teachings also detailed the miracles.

−80

xPlasma t1_jabl02u wrote

How is arrogant to derive value from moral teachings without believing in the super natural. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

49

goteamnick t1_jabnaay wrote

This is like deciding you don't like The Beatles' music, so you throw away the vinyl and declare they were excellent models for album sleeves and nothing more.

−62

Bumwax t1_jabzmab wrote

What's wrong with that? Hell the Sgt Peppers cover is an art peice in and of itself and I would gladly have it on my wall. But I don't fancy their music much.

24

Dark_Shade_75 t1_jacmhry wrote

Now I'm all for analogies, but comparing the Beatles' music to walking on water is a new one for me.

Also there's nothing wrong with using the moral guide book and only taking the moral lessons from it. That's... the whole point of the book. I'd bet Jesus would love it tbh.

13

Exoddity t1_jabu9pf wrote

The arrogance and conceit to think nothing is good or wise unless accompanied by the transubstantiation of water to wine or some other such bullshit.

How much does it say about your beliefs that the only thing shackling you to them seems to be its supposed tie to divinity, or fear of some eternal torment?

18

zebrastarz t1_jacuxms wrote

Actually, this is a fascinating subject, and I think it has to do with the fear of the unknown that most people actually lean on religion to help them with. For those people, religion is probably necessarily supernatural to allow it to give moral prescriptions and provide explanations that the logical mind fails to provide for itself. The low stakes and "reality" of the miracles Jesus was described as performing hit a satisfying middle ground for this type of person, bleeding from reality into the fantastical to create just enough plausibility that the logical brain accepts the unknown as something that can be understood and possibly even used if you just follow the right lessons. For those same people, it is understandable that trying to impart religious morals and teachings without the supernatural aspects is arrogance because it suggests that anyone with logical thinking is capable of overcoming the fear of the unknown and understanding divinity, something that to them is seemingly impossible without instruction coming from an order higher than Man.

5

Notorious_Junk t1_jac5wwe wrote

What's more arrogant, editing a book or calling yourself the son of god?

3

[deleted] t1_jabt76m wrote

[deleted]

0

[deleted] t1_jabvk5a wrote

He was the worst kind of influential and intelligent human. A hypocritical influential and intelligent human.

−2

the_ill_buck_fifty t1_jabghwa wrote

Many if not most of the founding fathers were deists. Hardly orthodox faithful.

79

ninjas_in_my_pants t1_jadl56y wrote

Jill Lepore wrote that the founding of the United States was the least religious time in the history of our nation or British colonial times.

14

zebrastarz t1_jacvb7d wrote

Shoutout to deism for being a chill religion

6

[deleted] t1_jabha7m wrote

[deleted]

−20

no_more_secrets t1_jabje11 wrote

Most Freemasons are Christians.

5

beaverbait t1_jabk919 wrote

But it's not a requirement they only have to believe in a higher power.

7

CanadianGurlfren t1_jacppjv wrote

Freemasonry in the 18th and 19th century were radical atheists, anti-monarchists, feminists, and libertines. That's why they had to be so secretive

Modern Freemasonry is just a club

5

no_more_secrets t1_jadkyzw wrote

>Freemasonry in the 18th and 19th century were radical atheists

That is an historically dubious claim.

1

KindAwareness3073 t1_jac9333 wrote

Many founding fathers were "observant", that's not the same as "devoted" or even "believing". Nearly all were "Enlightenment" thinkers, and many were Freemasons. All had grown up under state religions. Their "Freedom of religion" was more about freedom FROM religion.

Edit: spelling

37

Eroe777 t1_jadbh4z wrote

Most of the Founding Fathers can best be described as Deists- they believed in God, but were not necessarily very 'Christian'.

But try telling that to the Republicans.

11

timk85 t1_jadknda wrote

I mean, a deist still believes in God.

−1

OwenLoveJoy t1_jacfll6 wrote

One of the requirements of being a Freemason is belief in god, although you are correct that many of the founders were not deeply religious.

6

KindAwareness3073 t1_jad0pka wrote

From Wikipedia:

"Whilst it is recognized that Masonry is not atheistic (Masons aligned with the United Grand Lodge of England are asked if they believe in God or another supreme being before joining and only accept candidates that do),[17] its use of the expression Supreme Architect of the Universe—a term attributed to the Protestant theologian John Calvin—is seen by some Christian critics as indicating Deism, the belief that God created the Universe but did not intervene in the world after this."

"Supreme Architect of the Universe" was a convenient dodge in the 18th century world where living people could still recall the Witch Trials.

6

DiamondsJims t1_jadscud wrote

Unless you're a freemason. They will attack and assault you as part of a perverse "non religious" practice. When they want someone to do something, they will leverage their "brothers" to compel your fate.

Freemasons these days are about being above the letter of the law.

0

Nivekian13 t1_jabyis0 wrote

Very few of the founding fathers were “devoted”, they were deists. Learn MORE.

35

LewisEFurr t1_jad83ux wrote

This is extremely important. The difference between a deist and a theist is massive and despite them aligning themselves with Christian values, it's dangerously disingenuous to use that as proof of the US being founded on Christianity.

19

Locke_and_Load t1_jadh5ez wrote

The US is explicitly NOT founded on the Christian religion, and anyone throwing out quotes from them to prove otherwise is pulling shit out of their ass. They all believed in a higher power but knew the dangers of defining it narrowly or letting a single religious organization run the country

11

Nyteshade81 t1_jaej4gz wrote

One case in point:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these
shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for
centuries.”
James Madison — 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

2

HPmoni t1_jadxx9t wrote

Christians, Catholics. America wasn't founded by atheists or scientologists.

0

Nyteshade81 t1_jaejh71 wrote

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

John Adams - Treaty of Tripoli

1

WestWindStables t1_jaevm8g wrote

Your "Learn MORE." sentence made me immediately think of the movie Starship Troopers.

2

OwenLoveJoy t1_jacfiof wrote

Washington also regularly attended different Christian denominations to promote National unity. Although the atheism of the founding fathers is sometimes overrated, many of them were undoubtedly way ahead of their time in regards to religious freedom.

9

heretowatchyt1 t1_jadlfj1 wrote

Thomas Jefferson owned and read the Quran. That same Quran he owned is in the library of Congress. It has been used for serveral members of federal government when sworn in who are Muslim.

8

AzLibDem t1_jadhq9e wrote

So, he was asectual

4

kj3044 t1_jadndj2 wrote

I see what you did there🤟

1

hyperiongate t1_jacefy8 wrote

There is only one true church and I am it's only member.

3

timk85 t1_jadkvej wrote

Yes, he would not have fit into the "Christian box" that exists in modern American culture, nor would have a lot of ancient Christians. He, like most of the deists, still believed in God – just not quite as "structured" as we have these days.

Even C.S. Lewis, who is uplifted by evangelicals, had some very different views about God that they would find strange.

The problem is that – like everything else, Christianity has been broken up into nice and neat little boxes. God simply will not fit in these.

3

goteamnick t1_jabjjk3 wrote

He also kept hundreds of people enslaved, including his own children from his rape victim, so he could live in obscene luxury.

2

semiomni t1_jaby78m wrote

Well nothing in the bible forbidding slavery.

Which is odd really, don't steal made the cut, no worshipping false idols made the cut, not owning other people though, no rules against that.

13

spiked_macaroon t1_jac9lgn wrote

Quite the contrary, there are guidelines for slavery in the Bible.

12

Whargod t1_jacucgu wrote

Guidelines doesn't mean a ban, it means it's ok as long as you follow a particular magic sky elf or whatever they believe.

0

MattyKatty t1_jaby5bk wrote

> including his own children from his rape victim

Not only is there no actual proof that he had children with Sally Hemings, but also there’s no proof that he had a sexual relationship with her at all.

8

Nivekian13 t1_jabymd5 wrote

DNA tests say otherwise, contrarian goof…

−5

XIphos12 t1_jabn4qj wrote

Hey. Don't bother people with the truth , they hate it

−3

zebrastarz t1_jacyaf2 wrote

Hey, Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician whose work is still cited to this day, but obviously shouldn't be revered for other reasons. People are complex and lived in different times and circumstances than you and I. Knowing the truth is powerful and useful, but it is all about context. Facts about Jefferson's slave-owning have practically zero to do with his contributions to law and philosophy. Many great thinkers were not necessarily great people.

9

GenXer3383 t1_jad0i77 wrote

The same people who want Jefferson struck from memory revere French gender theorists who signed a letter in support of men (ages 39-45) who were awaiting trial for statutory rape of 12 and 13 year old kids when the age of consent was 15 in France.

6

XIphos12 t1_jad4i68 wrote

What is all this nonsense about striking Jefferson from history and revering French gender theorists?

0

GenXer3383 t1_jad5a44 wrote

The woke left who have vandalized statues of Jefferson revere the gender theory laid down by the likes of Simone de Beauvoir.

Also, I said memory, not history. To clarify, they want any positive memory of Jefferson to be drowned out with "he owned and raped slaves" while they are blissfully ignorant that Jefferson tried to pass laws to reduce and eliminate slavery. The man wasn't perfect, but was a much better man than they want to believe.

3

Lalakea t1_jadiw4i wrote

Washington owned slaves. Madison owned slaves. Monroe owned slaves. Were there any founding fathers from the south that weren't slaveowners? I mean, you probably weren't getting elected to anything unless you owned a plantation. If you tried to farm without using slaves you'd probably go broke, because your competition is able to sell at a cheaper price.

2

GenXer3383 t1_jadk0jj wrote

Also, if you married a daughter of a plantation owner, even if you don't want more slaves, you or she may inherit slaves from her parents when they die, and you don't have an option in the matter. Messed up situation all around.

3

Lalakea t1_jadovri wrote

Yep. I suppose you could free all your slaves and sell your land (most of these guys were up to their asses in debt, so maybe not), and wash your hands of the whole nasty business, but now...

  1. You have to move. Your neighbors will hate you. Intensely. Go north, old man. Run.
  2. Your former slaves have no clear path forward. No money, no land. Do you think the locals will welcome them warmly as new equal citizens and offer employment at fair wages? Not likely. No, they will (best case) drive them away as living embodiments of the immorality of their way of life. Or (more likely), lynchings will ensue.
  3. That guy you sold your farm to. What do you think he is going to do? That's right: buy some more slaves and get back to business as usual. Congratulations, you have financially ruined your family and have accomplished... nothing. Changing the world ain't easy.
2

XIphos12 t1_jad6cst wrote

I have no idea who this de Beauvoir guy was, and to be honest I don't give a shit. Jefferson was what he was. Pointing out that he owned slaves isn't somehow wrong, no matter what effect that information has on the public. Those facts should be just as front-and-center as any of his redeeming qualities or achievements.

0

GenXer3383 t1_jad7igv wrote

Simone de Beauvoir was a woman.

The point is, it is a problem when ignorant people only bleat out "Jefferson had slaves" anytime they see something remotely positive about him, when they have no clue he was on the forefront of trying to end slavery in the US in his day.

1

XIphos12 t1_jadct81 wrote

So level with me then: these people are ignorant by stating a simple fact about him. This frustrates you because it doesn't complete the picture. Yet I have to ask, if Jefferson "was at the forefront" as you say, why did he not start with his own slaves? If you're going to expect something from others, you should probably make it your own practice. In my mind, that makes him one of two things in regards to the abolition of slavery: foolish or insincere. We can't pretend he had no influence in Revolutionary America, and we can't we pretend he practiced what he preached. Honestly if he had started with his own (more than just 2 of his 600), it may have gone a long way. Yet speculation is just speculation and the facts remain: Jefferson owned slaves and used them. He freed a handful (including those freed before and after he died), and the rest were sold after his death to pay off his substantial debt.

2

GenXer3383 t1_jaderb7 wrote

Laws were restrictive in freeing slaves at the time. Jefferson also believed in educating and training slaves so they were no illiterate and unskilled citizens destined to be desititue for life with little or no resources to build a life for themselves. Presumably, he lacked the resources to pursue his political career (including trying to end slavery), maintain his family and estate, and properly prepare more slaves to be freemen.

In the end, his efforts to curb slavery socially and politically didn't bear great fruit, though slavery was shrinking until the industrial revolution made slave labor more economically viable. Perhaps Jefferson would be looked upon more kindly if he had a time machine, knew his policies wouldn't end slavery, and had the foresight to free a greater amount of his own slaves. (Though again, pro-slavery politicians and landholders made freeing large numbers of slaves very difficult with laws and policies they successfully put in place.)

For people to just spew "hur dur, Jefferson had slaves" when he couldn't just wave his had and free all his slaves to live happy and productive lives is lazy and smears the legacy of a great leader in our history.

1

XIphos12 t1_jadl5ea wrote

Oh, for heaven's sake, he wasn't restricted from freeing his own slaves. Robert Carter did it! George Washington did it! Nobody said anything about a magic hand wave. He could have just made the decision to let his own captives go. He seemed to have thought the event of complete emancipation would trigger great civil unrest at the time. His refusal to create an amendment for the gradual emancipation of slavery combined with his condemning/outlawing the international slave trade leads me to believe he was wishy-washy and selfish in his anti-slavery efforts, at best.

1

GenXer3383 t1_jado8l6 wrote

You want to believe the worst of the man while refusing to acknowledge the conflicts he had to contend with to do so.

1

XIphos12 t1_jadq5d4 wrote

Nope. He had many redeeming qualities and he did indeed make some legislative effort to remove the institution. I just think his own internal biases and uncertainties were his undoing in regards to slavery. He believed blacks were inferior to whites, and he thought they should be emancipated in Africa and that freedmen should colonize there, because doing it on American soil would lead to great social turmoil and violence. From an observational standpoint, he was correct in the latter thought, to his credit. Civil unrest and war broke out after the abolition of slavery.

1

XIphos12 t1_jad3wb9 wrote

You're exactly right, there is more to Jefferson than slavery. Yet, you could measure historical figures in their entirety and not see them as people to hold in reverence at all. I'd be more impressed that Jefferson was the primary penman behind the Declaration of Independence if he wholly subscribed to the ideals therein, for instance. You know, contrary to the whole "don't measure by today's standards, such and such person was just a product of their time", it's perfectly acceptable to judge the actions of a historical figure by our own standards. It reasserts our own moral progress. People in the future are going to do it to us, too

3

zebrastarz t1_jad6zad wrote

I'm not saying don't judge; Teddy K and I aren't buds or nothin. All I'm saying is that this line of discussion is irrelevant to the topic, just like discussing the legacy of the Unabomber is useless when the topic is math.

3

XIphos12 t1_jad9ai1 wrote

That's true too. Remember discussions don't have to stay in one place though. The post was about Thomas Jefferson's variety with churches he attended, and the comments drifted toward a discussion about Thomas Jefferson in general, which seems normal honestly. It's natural for people who aren't fans of Jefferson to point out his flaws and for people who think positively about him to defend all his merits

0

RabbaJabba t1_jad278i wrote

> Hey, Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician whose work is still cited to this day

Is it? Google scholar seems to only show a handful of citations of his papers, mostly from when he was active.

2

zebrastarz t1_jad445c wrote

The small sample is easily explained by it being an obscure area of math and the most recent citation to his most prolific work was in 2021 from a quick search...

ETA: some support about the obscurity: "Maxwell Reade, a member of his dissertation committee, said, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it"

3

RabbaJabba t1_jaein35 wrote

>his most prolific work

I hope you mean his second-most-cited work, number one is the manifesto

1

Moosetappropriate t1_jae25e9 wrote

Thomas Jefferson was among the best educated of the founders. This information doesn’t surprise me in the least.

2

DooooYouuuRealize t1_jae5v8p wrote

Most of the founding fathers were deists not Christians. In God We Trust wasn't even added to the USA until the 1950s lol.

2

NickelFish t1_jabvjtw wrote

Here's your Head of John The Baptist. Fries are coming right up.

1

mr_oberts t1_jad4ut8 wrote

He really got around a few ways.

1

gorillamagnet t1_jadvv9w wrote

This concept of 'devoted founding fathers' is nonsense, revisionist history. Jefferson and Franklin were agnostic and may even have been atheists. Washington paid lip service to religion on his best day but it played no major role in his life.

If you're wondering why so many American right wingers are religious and like to mix their religion with politics, it is mainly because, in their minds, the US is like a fallen angel that was once a great nation, and was a great nation because it was God fearing. And it has gotten away from that. And if only it would get back to God, that would solve most of its problems and it would once again become great. That's why they say 'put God back in schools.' God was never in schools, at least no school that I ever attended. And what they really mean there is 'put Christian God back in schools.' Somehow I don't think Muslim kids kneeling and praying to the west in the gym is quite what they have in mind when they say that.

The entire premise of this is false. From a Constitutional perspective, the US was never ever a God fearing or Christian nation. This is pure revisionist history.

Source: Me. I worked in the Republican party apparatus in my local politics for a period of years and I know how they think. And I read the Constitution. Jesus' name never comes up even once.

1

BoazCorey t1_jae11tq wrote

The amount of BS pop-history hot takes here is appalling haha

1

Henesis t1_jae0xsv wrote

Yeah he would look for different information to believe in considering TJ was actually a huge asshole and slave holder.

Naturally he would be looking for support in all types of different places lmao.

0

TronOld_Dumps t1_jabgn8r wrote

Sounds a bit narcissistic.

Edit - I just said sounds....I didn't say I was smart or qualified to opine.

−1

Thick_Pipe187 t1_jabhb4v wrote

​

It's interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson was unique among the founding fathers in his religious beliefs. He was a deist, but unlike many of the other deists, he attended multiple different churches and declared himself to be "of a sect by myself". It's a fascinating example of how one can be deeply religious while still having a unique perspective.

2

TronOld_Dumps t1_jabje6q wrote

Honestly I really don't see religion and unique perspective in the same sentence. But agree to disagree I guess... Or whatever they say....

Edit - Religion in a nutshell. Something we can't prove now did something and now we need to worship said thing.

−8

Gary_Coopah t1_jabisni wrote

I think people who only visit one church could be deemed narcissistic

−4

PapaSock t1_jablg84 wrote

Do you think he went to a church buffet, or was it more like they wheeled out different blessings on a dessert cart, and he just gobbled them up willy-nilly?

−3

Chunkylover537 t1_jabscjz wrote

He also dressed like a frenchman to fight in the war.

−4

puffnstuff272 t1_jabst16 wrote

Damn all those churches and never learned that it’s wrong to rape and enslave people, let alone your own children.

−4

mplsmark t1_jablhe5 wrote

And owned people. Look elsewhere for a role model

−8