Setting the record straight

That doesn't mean that he was a Christian. He was actually a Deist. he believed in a god of nature. He never claimed to be an Atheist. But he certainly wasn't a Christian. The quote that you posted does not mean entirely what you think it does.

Basically, he was stating that all of the miracles & fables in the bible are a disservice to people who identify with Christianity. And that they'd be better served to only focus on the teachings & works of Jesus, such as: feeding the poor, clothing the naked, being non-violent, etc...

There are also, however, many more statements than the example that you posted that illustrate his hostility towards Christianity.

..."Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."-- 1782

..."I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."-- 1789

..."History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."-- 1813

..."Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-- 1814

..."Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."-- 1820

..."Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."-- 1820

There are many, MANY more. But I think you get the point.

Jefferson was talking about 'priestCRAFTS' and the natural tendency of man to distort the simple teachings of Christ. He did say he expected a day when divine beings would restore the simple ancient church in its purity. How many non-Christians would suggest such a thing? That he was offended by the adulterated version of the church established by Christ is not synonymous with rejecting Christianity as taught by Christ and his Apostles. Yes, he despised priestcrafts. I do, too. Men keeping others in ignorance in order to maintain power over them and make merchandise of them--that is priestcraft at the heart of it. We have that in lawyer-craft and doctor-craft also. Why heal when you can keep them coming back a few more times or do some unneeded operation? Why file that proper paper when you can insert a few false steps before that to make a few extra dollars?

Christianity was not 'the law' as you say, because the founders did not want to dictate belief or faith. England had a national religion and anything other than that was punished. Few wanted that here. But we generally accept that our basis for law is in the Judeo-Christian tradition and that our three prong structure of government is Biblical in nature, being taken directly from the Old Testament.

I agree fully that the world of "Christendom" has not come together in the unity Christ spoke of. In fact, they ignore the clear guidance that would lead them to the reasoning that the ancient church has been damaged through the devious workings of men--that prophets and Apostles would be needed "...UNTIL WE COME TOGETHER IN A UNITY OF THE FAITH." Since that day has yet to come, it would appear we still need Apostles and prophets to receive revelation. There arises the problem. The world of Christendom thinks all of that is done with and expects no revelation in modern times. In fact, Jefferson's statement would be considered blasphemy by them, that he expects a restoration of the ancient church. In their estimation, there is no need for a restoration, because they won't admit anything was lost or corrupted over the ages. One need only compare the pomp and ceremony of modern churches, the TV evangelism and quest for money that takes place to know that the simplicity and the real mission of Christ to feed the hungry, heal the sick and clothe the naked has gone by the wayside in favor of non-profit organizations that do indeed profit heavily and charitable organizations that give no charity.

A quick read of Fox's Book of Martyrs will show that the majority of those who have been tortured in the name of Christianity have been those who adhere to the ancient simplicity and teachings, resisting the creeping in of corrupt influences and doctrines of men and devils. As for no people remaining free in the presence of a priest-ridden society, there is a lot of truth to that, as the churches of men (as opposed to that of Christ) will invariably try to control the hearts and minds of men by any means possible. The book of Revelation mentions that there will be a false prophet as well as the anti-Christ who will rule over the people. False government and false religion are two of a kind with the same goal--the domination of all mankind and global conquest. That was not what Christ stood for and never will.

Those who often think of themselves as Christian are indeed worshipers of evil and the natural tendencies of man. They may as well be demon worshipers, as you quote Jefferson. I am reminded of the words of Paul to those on Mars Hill, with all the idols and one that was to the unknown god, whom they were afraid might be offended if they forgot him.

"He whom ye ignorantly worship declare I unto you!"

Many so-called Christians know so little of the ancient beliefs, being clouded by the philosophies of men that have crept in. And more the pity, they have no desire to know the truth and be found blameless before God in doing so. Set in their ways, they make a bad name for all Christianity in general. I think Jefferson knew this instinctively and commented on it honestly. He cast not aside the teachings of Christ, but the fraud that his followers later introduced into his teachings.

Now you have hit upon it. The current version of "christianity" is a Scam.

At the council of Nicea in 325 AD, the 300+ bishops from the eastern block outvoted the 30 or so from the areas near Rome They did the Politically Correct thing and designed a God to suit their Emperor. They voted in a "mystical God" adapted from the oriental religions, and usurped the original concepts of Christ and the prophets.

They also concluded that there is only One (1) god... yet the Old and New Testaments both say there are many gods (and that we have the challenge to become like one of them.). These usurping mystics in 325 AD also concluded that God is ONLY a spirit. Yet the whole point of the New Testament is that Jesus HAS (not had) a real, restored body, and that he now looks very much like His Father. The Old Testament prophets speak of virtually every physical part of God (as if they really do exist) as if he is a real being.

At least as related to us, God operates completely within the laws of the universe. To do less or more would be both unjust and unmerciful. He is not a stage magician, nor a ventriloquist trying to trick us. He is our Father.

We are not told whether there is more that exists or different rules outside the laws and rules that we are given us in this universe.

However, that may change: There are ancient scriptural passages that tell of angels passing through "conduits of light", and today Michio Kaku says physics is approaching the day when we might be able to do the same thing and actually enter another universe.

There are even older scriptures that say the earth was formed (by Jehovah/Jesus and others: " Let us go down...") out of so called "empty space". And today astronomers tell us that space IS NOT "empty". In fact, we feeble humans can only observe 4% of the mass and energy of the universe, the rest is hidden in Dark Matter and Dark Energy That 96% (!!) is hidden in outer space, and perhaps even within us.

These are "newly discovered" truths in physics that someone was trying to tell us about over 6,000 years ago (and don't tell me it was just Moses speculating, even he wasn't that smart.)

You and I agree fully on these matters. God uses those laws and is not above them in the sense that he can ignore them or violate them. I won't go so far as to say that He invented them, but certainly He knows them well and uses them to full advantage. As for the age of the earth, it is obviously not a mere 6-10,000 years old. In fact the verse Peter gives us is so MIS-interpreted that it is sad. I upset religionists when I show them another way to interpret it that is in line with science.

If one 'day' is a thousand years, then a 'year' would be 365,000 regular years. If a thousand of those 'years' is 365,000,000 regular years and THAT is one "DAY" to God, then multiply that by seven to get the age of the earth FROM the period when it was being prepared for life. You need to add some reasonable amount for a cooling period. When you do that, the time period comes within a fraction of the age the scientists say the earth is. The seven 'days' comes to 3.55 billion regular years, if I recall. You need 4.2 billion to be at the age when science says it is correct. I would think that difference is about right to cool sufficiently from a molten state to one that will not boil off all water and will begin to support the simplest bacteria and so forth.

Each 365M year period could be seen as a geological era in which God introduced new life forms, one male and one female, from the simplest plants to the animals that feed on them, etc. Immanuel Velikovsky, in his book When Worlds Collide(?), explains how the death of dinosaurs and the ice age came about. The same event brought on the flood of Noah. Another good volume that shows it scientifically is The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch.

I have developed a phrase: "There are no supernatural events. However, there are some really Super Natural events." There exists a logical explanation for everything that happens and for all the miracles of scripture. When our own feeble logic is not capable of explaining an event, then be assured there is at least One whose logic does comprehend it.

That does not make the event we see any less miraculous!! In the Old Testament they described stones that allowed the holder to see and hear prophecies from some greater power than their own. SuperNatural, yes. Miraculous, yes. Mythical,NO! Today we call these chunks of rock, silicon, or sand by the name of "cellphones". Yet as recently as 100 years ago they would be thought of as 'miracles'.

Our human EGO, called "vanity of vanities" by Solomon, leads us to think that WE are the greatest minds in the Universe. That this is very unlikely is exposed by our own "science". Do we really believe that we are going to go out and terraform other worlds in the next 1,000 years and yet also think it has never been done in the last 14,000,000,000 years in 300,000,000 planets each of 300,000,000,000 galaxies by at least one other being???? That thinking sure takes a lot of Hutzpah!

Personally, I have seen miracles, been the beneficiary of them, participated in them, been brought to speechless tears by them. If you have not found (or recognized) any such in your life, then I pity you. I consider myself a man of Science, having three patents, and having developed million-dollar proprietary technical innovations for my employers. Yet, I have also seen many things that have no reasonable explanation other than outside (other-world, other-universe, divine, miraculous) interventions.

That said, I also have scores of close friends who tell me they have seen similar or even greater things.

You need to get out more.

All religions are scams whether you realize it or not. Look, the truth of the matter is, that nothing you mention is your posts prove the likelyhood of a god, gods, supernatural, or divine. Like I've mentioned earlier, science may not prove the lack of existence, but that's never been the point of the Atheist anyway.

You may say that you've "seen" or "experienced" things that have no other explaination besides the divine.... But that certainly doesn't mean that divinity can be the only explaination. To say that we only have a choice between what we currently know (or think we know) about science, and Theism, is ridiculous and irresponsible to say the least. The two are not equiprobable.

And yes, I've seen what some may classify as "miracles" too.... But just because I had not found an explaination, doesn't conclude that there wasn't one. Just as in your case, or anyone else's case for that matter. Jumping to the "god must have done it because there's no other explaination" conclusion is nothing short of laziness. Sometimes things happen which we cannot explain-- yet. Just as you also pointed out common items that we have today, would've been seen as "mysterious", or "miraculous" several thousand years ago.. We know that they are obviously not. But you can't seriously make the leap from "holding rocks the see prophecies" by comparing them with cell phones, can you? (and you say that I need to get out more).... For obvious reasons, I won't go into the difference between a chunk of silicon (which is not merely sand, but a property within some sand, by the way) and the rest of the techonlogy that makes up a cell phone. But, I will point out that the "chunk of silicon" is not the communication device of the phone. You may say, "it won't work without it"... but it also wouldn't work without- just about- every basic functional piece to it.


Ok, I feel that we're going to far astray. The simple fact is this... Religion, Theism, Divinity, or whatever else you want to call it, is not proven by anything that you've mentioned. I am not an Atheist because I have a problem with modern day Christianity (or any religion for that matter), I am not an Atheist because some priests diddled some altar boys, I am not an Atheist because I see how unjust the world is most of the time.... I am an Atheist because the burden of proof lies in the hands of Theists.... And to this date, I have seen NO evidence to their claim.

You know, the hardest part of showing an atheist that the possibility of God exists is this: The only way to KNOW is because you have received personal revelation. I compare it to someone in the next room giving you a call on your cell phone. You didn't know they were there. In fact, until they call, you didn't know there was such a thing as a cell phone. God works that way. Now, the sad thing is that unless you have experienced such an event, you would call anyone who has a psychotic. That is because the experience itself is out of the bounds you know as reality. Now, there is no law that says your idea of reality is correct or complete, yet you still think anyone who 'hears voices' is psychotic, right? They think you are deprived of the most wonderful experience that mankind could ever know. The viewpoints have just gone from different to diametrically opposed. You can't measure God in a lab and they have no way to really tell you what the experience was like, because you have to repeat it yourself to know. When that happens, you get the AHA! moment. But there are rules--you will never have the experience forced upon you. You have to be receptive to the possibility. That's a problem for someone who thinks of that as a weakness, so it becomes self-defeating. That person will never know, because they will never let themselves know.

I have written an essay that has made one 'devout atheist' tell me she wasn't so devout anymore. She was surprised I didn't take the typical fire and brimstone approach. I approached it scientifically, in fact. But that is not PROOF. It is only evidence--overwhelming evidence, to be sure, but still only evidence. The proof comes in being IN the test tube WITH God and in no other way. The next move is yours and always has been.

Look, I can at least appreciate your approach, which is done in a much more respectable way than most.

But, I'll tell you this much. I actually used to be a believer. I thought that I did have that "AHA" moment.... Turns out, that I merely just thought that I did. But, as I grew, I realized within myself, that the possibility was simply too far fetched.

Can I say with 100% certainty that there is no god? Of course not. Which is why I avoid such terms as "devout" to describe myself. I base my views & opinions on the world around me, and by what makes sense to me. At present moment, the concept of a god is one that simply lacks any sense whatsoever to me. And I don't need to seek the answer to the question of whether there is one. It's just not a priority.

Most Atheists, myself included, are not on a mission to "convert" believers. I have no interest in telling religious folk that they're "wrong" when it comes to believing. I do- however- have a problem with those who try to muddy up the waters with pseudo-science. People who- for example- want creation to be taught in public schools in place of evolution. People who believe that teaching teenagers how to avoid getting pregnant beyond "abstainance only" programs, is somehow granting "permission" to have sex, etc... Such actions are incredibly irresponsible- dare I say- dangerous.

Sadly though, most religious people do feel the need to convert Atheists, as well as people who follow- what they believe to be- "false" religions. This is not why I'm an Atheist, but it's an added turn off.

I do try to be respectful. After all, I don't claim to have all knowledge either. I know only what I know. I suspect other things, but will admit what is speculation. I actually wrote an article on the idea of which side of the issue takes 'too much faith'. When I considered all the steps necessary to believe in mankind coming about by means of Darwinian evolution, the mathematical odds against it became so monstrously huge one would need the Hubble telescope to see the last digit of the number. Frankly, I don't have that much faith. Then there is the hypocritical arrogance of some--(will admit many religionists do this as well) they fund programs such as SETI and then have the gall to say there is no supremely intelligent being out there? That is a contradiction. And many will plagiarize the very same theories they ridiculed religionists (admittedly wayward ones) for believing in not so long ago--namely Ex Nihilo creation. Michio Kaku actually said that 'the universe was created from a disturbance in the vacuum.' What disturbs a vacuum? There are MANY problems with the 'big bang' theory and I have challenged Stephen Hawking personally. If you wish to read any of these essays, they are at http://deeperthings.webs.com, under the blog link and then under categories titled Science and Religion--Common Ground? and under Physics, Big Bang and More. Taught in this way it is not a pseudo-science, but a valid alternative. It will stand on its own, I assure you.

The Bible actually refers to the age of the earth and is only a fraction different from the age cited by science. It's all in interpretation, because men of that age had no concept of the numbers we do now, but the EQUATION is there, albeit misread by most religionists. When you know how to read it as an equation, which is not so hard and certainly not a stretch of imagination, it is very clear. I make the misguided religionists as angry as I do false scientists. I accept that there is a logical common ground between the two extremes and that truth is that common ground. I also accept that the God I know works by the laws of physics and would not ignore them when inconvenient, like many scientists so-called do or like many religionists do.

I do understand your aversion to 'conversion'. I have had those discussions with those who say I am not a true Christian because I am a Latter-day Saint ('Mormon'). Invariably these people no longer believe in their own Bibles. They wrestle with meanings and get the clear verses so contorted that it would be no surprise that folks like you think it to be ridiculous. I would agree. But realize this--my 'mission' is not to convert you, but to show you there is another way to see it. That is why the 'devout' atheist friend of mine said that maybe she was not so devout after all. There is common ground we can meet on. Frankly, when I look at the state of 'christianity' (lower case intentional), I don't blame you for dismissing it. I would too, if not for the revelation I had that changed me in a second. I can no longer refuse to believe it...and neither can the friend who was with me and experienced the identical revelation. Can you imagine someone plugging into your mind and inputting information that you never knew? And then you do some research and find out it is true? And I'm not talking mundane things, either. I had that experience with a friend. Neither of us is the same after that. I truly think it saved my life, too.

I won't badger you or press you to read my views on the blog, but if you do, then perhaps you will see a slightly different viewpoint than you do now. That would be all I would ask of you as a friend. Nothing more.