Title: If A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Then What Do These Memes Say? (Parts VIII & I) Source:
The Potters Clay URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6ulv9aQno Published:Oct 10, 2018 Author:The Potters Clay Post Date:2019-10-07 12:02:10 by Liberator Keywords:Truth, Memes, Hmmm Views:45794 Comments:340
A little Meme action... If you haven't seen them, checkout the rest!
Get bored easily? No time to watch long videos? MEMES TO THE RESCUE! Short & Sweet.
These are found at a Christian You Tube called, 'The Potters Clay'...
These are REALLY good. Fun stuff. I promise. Spectacular AND clever. It doesn't matter what your core belief is; you will come upon several memes that will stop you dead in your tracks and challenge you.
(STRONG SUGGESTION: To adjust and slow these memes down, go to your YouTube 'Settings', then adjust 'Playback Speed to .75. It will give you more time to contemplate the meme, since they move along pretty fast.)
When you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
I get the impression that, on any given day, it is harder to predict the jet stream over the Pacific than it is for eastern CONUS and the Atlantic flight lanes.
There's a good animation of this at Wiki that I linked above. The Pacific region is just more chaotic and constantly in flux. The Atlantic jet stream is pretty predictable by comparison.
Even if you manage to find "defects" in half or even 90% of the assertions, that still leaves 10-50% to legitimately ponder over. Once a NASA caught repeatedly fudging is eliminated from the quotient, what is there?
So you're saying that once NASA's credibility has been called into question with some issues and fabrications of whatever sort, they shouldn't be trusted. Well, shouldn't that same rule apply to flat earth advocates like this one that claims this flight came from Bali and not Taiwan? Why doesn't their credibility fall apart when they suggest wrong distances between cities, or state that the magnetic poles are in line with the geographic poles?
But yes, all allegations of flat earth can be refuted, not just 90% of them, provided they rely on factual info that can be researched. There's no way to refute someone simply claiming to have gone up in a plane and seeing a flat earth. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims, we just have to decide whether to accept them, reject them, or just set them aside as unsubstantiated.
Then again..."Sin" IS "messy." If we can agree with your statement, then now -- how exactly does sin get "cleaned up"? Or erased from our "Record"?
My meaning with "messy" was not in terms of dirty, soiled or unclean. I mean sin is messy theologically. That is, it's pretty much impossible to quantify whether an act is a sin or not. There is no binary switch in the human psyche that flips an LED light on in the brain that specifies a sin is in progress. Sin relies on bad intent to violate some law of God. And how do you measure intent in the mind of a 3 year old who takes a cookie without asking? Is it the commission of a sin against God of stealing or just a 3-year old acting on instinct to eat?
Consciousness varies in all of us from time to time. We are not always fully aware of why we do things or even of what's going on around us. In fact I don't think we can ever attest to being "fully" aware of our surroundings. Sometimes we are wide away and on high alert. Other times we are drousy, sick in bed or even in a coma, so the degree of our awareness of our environment and circumstances varies on a sliding scale. And since a factor in deciding whether sin occurs is how aware we are, then it necessarily also makes sin something that is measured on a sliding scale. But that's not something fundamentalist Christianity teaches, which is that sin is something you have on you, or you don't.
So it's messy. Not clean cut. Not clear. Difficult to qualify in terms of when it sin is committed. Under Newton, while there is right and wrong, virtue and vice, sin as a staining entity that condemns a soul for eternity and can only be washed away by the blood of an innocent is not a theological component. So in terms of theological modeling, the Newton model just works better as it doesn't have that messy issue.
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit.
That's basically it.
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian.
Edit: Spelling that out, it's because all souls are born of God. It is that reason why we are considered children of God. It has nothing to do with our humanity (which is why evolution doesn't matter). What matters is our origins as souls, and all of us, as souls, originated from God.
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian.
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit. However, that human spirit does not function the way it should, and that person experiences emptiness, which then causes that person to seek to fill the void, so to speak. That person will seek and try many things to fill the emptiness, but nothing ever truly satisfies. Oh, maybe for a little while that person will find excitement, relationships, possessions, ect. but in the end, they are still empty.
However, when God's Spirit enters in, the human spirit becomes as it was intended, alive and in communion/fellowship with God. We have been created for this very reason, to have inward fellowship with God.
If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
I have regretted over the years that I didn't keep an archive of the antifreeper Clown Posse stuff. It seems that RimJob threatened them with lawsuits and they folded up and disappeared entirely.
No. JimRob had nothing to do with shutting down either Clown Posse site, first the Snitz site and shortly thereafter, the vBulletin site. The Snitz site was not brought down by a legal action. A legal action required a plaintiff who knew the real world identity of the site owner in order to effect service. The manner of the shutdown probably required a relationship with the host in the UK who pulled the plug. I believe the vBulletin site was brought down by the threat of legal action, but had nothing to do with JimRob.
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit.
You illustrate the paradigm difference between conventional Christian belief and the Newton model I subscribe to. Not just Christian belief but also Judaism and Islam. All 3 of these faiths tend to phrase it as though the soul or spirit is an add-on to the physical body. A person is born "with" a human spirit. This expression implies the physical body is the primary identity of the person, of who and what we are, with the soul being a lessor component thrown in as a bonus.
Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on". It is the soul that defines the vast majority of our personal identity and even personality. Modern science has discovered DNA which has been accepted and presumed to be the defining element of all that we are, shaping our personality, favorite colors, virtues and vices. Under Newton, some qualities are indeed defined by our human structure, sexual preferences being one, but most of what we are is defined at the soul level. We are hybrid entities, mostly soul/spirit, but with a lessor human component, which would include capabilities of the human mind. The human body can be compared to a temporary rental unit instead of something that we own "for life" for the soul, and a rental unit that, once it stops working is disposed of and can be replaced at a future time.
Stated another way, we do not say that shoes have feet, gloves have hands, or that hats have heads. We say feet have shoes, hands have gloves and so on. Saying a body has a soul is the same as the former when in fact it is a soul that may or may not have, or wear, a body.
Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution. Given the assumption that our DNA defines our full identity, it follows that if we are descended from apes, that apes define our origins. Under Newton, that is not a problem as our human nature is only incidental and does not define our true origins as souls. Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth. Fundamental Christianity, on the other hand, because it maintains our uniqueness revolves around human nature as being special and unique above all other life forms, has to impart something spiritually unique about the human body, about our DNA that other animals do not possess. It must rely on our humanity reflecting the "image of God", which is often inferred to be the human body itself.
Under Newton, that's not the case at all. We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned. If intelligent life exists on other planets, we could just as easily incarnate into alien bodies for the same purpose. The human race is not who we are. It's what we use, and in spiritual terms is completely disposable, as is planet earth itself.
If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
I won't attempt to explain why emotions are experienced as it is something that can't be quantified, but I will say that any emotions associated with a certain religious faith do not necessarily validate the theology of that faith.
As you have lamented before that you have gone to great lengths, time and effort to explain your beliefs, only to have them hastily tossed aside, I wanted to say that I read your comment carefully, word for word, and...I actually understand your belief system much better now.
So just a point or two...
Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on".
The Christian belief is pretty much the same. The soul (our thoughts, feelings, etc) is what defines us...that is, until our spirit comes into play. Until our spirit is reborn and comes to life we are regarded as "soulful". Being soulful is actually not a good thing. While our thoughts and feelings can lift us up to exhilarating heights, they can just as easily bring us down to devastating lows. That's because the spirit is not functioning fully, to act as a governor, so to speak. When God gives life to our spirit the human being is now finally able to exist in balance, as God planned. We become regenerated, starting with the spirit, which governs the soul, which in turn governs the body. I know I have written all of this before but it bears repeating.
Before rebirth and renewal we are known by our soul. Think of all the descriptive words: he's an intellectual, she's an emotional wreck, he's moody, she's energetic, on and on. But after rebirth we are known by our spiritual attributes (or should be): he's wise unto God, she's prayerful, he's has a servant heart, she has real peace and joy, and so on. But trust me, the soul is always trying to resume its control of us! Christians fail all the time, every day. Hence the desperate need for grace!
Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution.
Just a word about evolution. We have a problem with evolution because we can see that life is just too complex to fit within the teachings of evolution. We believe God intentional made life so complex that we couldn't reasonably ascribe evolution to the creation. But man did it anyway!
Ping, I have more questions about your beliefs and hope to ask them in another post. I just need to think a bit more about what you have written.
We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned.
What about evil? How does the Newton model deal with evil?
Is there a spiritual force of evil that acts upon, or in conjunction with human evil?
For Christians, of course, that would be fallen angelic beings aligning themselves with evil humans, or it might just be evil humans acting on their own.
You can't deny that there is evil in the world, and it goes beyond whatever evil is found in human nature.
And it stands to reason that such evil goes beyond the mere learning of spiritual lessons.
What about evil? How does the Newton model deal with evil?
On the question of demons and devils, Newton, in one of his online interviews, while he does not state in absolute terms that they do not exist, does state, in objective fashion, that in the many thousands of hypnotic sessions he's had with clients, not a single one has ever made any mention of such entities existing.
Having said that, he does in his books refer to souls having negative or bad energy, which seems to be essentially a sickness. And that bad energy and souls that emit it can have a negative impact on others. I theorize that such cases could be interpreted as demons at work.
You can't deny that there is evil in the world, and it goes beyond whatever evil is found in human nature.
I think Newton's explanation on the matter would qualify as agreement, except with your use of the adjective "human". Evil, or bad energy, arises as an indirect consequence of weakness of the soul, not from "human nature".
And it stands to reason that such evil goes beyond the mere learning of spiritual lessons.
"Spiritual lessons" are more than simply academic, head knowledge lessons. They are lessons of experience.
Under the hyptnotists model. You can commit all kinds of evil with no consequences. You can rape 100 women, then cut the balls off of their husbands. Then go out an shoot up 50 schools. Then hijack the nukes and Nuke Iran until they are all dead. No matter with Newton you are still a good person there is no consequence for your actions, zero. You are just weak. Then you are still reborn or something.
Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth.
We incarnate into human form...
So there is a God in the Newton model.
What role does God play in your incarnation into human form?
Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence?
If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"?
It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
I have stated many, many times, that in the Newton model, there most certainly is accountability for intentional actions which unjustly harm others. Absolutely there is. I'm sure it doesn't satisfy you that the accountability doesn't take the form of dumping them into a lake of fire for all eternity, but full accountability nonetheless exists.
In Newton's books, the actual term that is frequently cited for God is "The Source". My impression is that is the term repeatedly selected by clients to describe God but I won't swear to it. Obviously as an English, human term, it's definition is likely incomplete as, of course, English is certainly not the language of the spirit world. Rather, clients under hypnosis are using English to describe memories they are recalling of the spirit world.
I'm sure you can empathize with that sort of issue in comparing English to Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible.
What role does God play in your incarnation into human form?
I'm not sure where you are going with that question, but it seems a very deep question and I'm not really inclined to recite the whole book.
Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence?
If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"?
It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
If you are asking about whether our purpose in life is all centered around God or centered around ourselves, I'd probably say it's centered around everyone, including God, and including ourselves. As we grow, all around us also benefit, so it's not like it's even possible to grow in a self-centered way that doesn't benefit everyone.
Consider an analogy to be the average family. The life of parents in a healthy family are pretty much centered around the children, in helping them grow and learn wisdom and knowledge. Why then would it, should it, be different between us and God? The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate. If God created us "in His image", which is one biblical description I agree with and which I think is largely how things work in the Newton model, then to say we are nothing is inaccurate. We are special. Not because God arbitrarily decided that we were special. We are special because we, as souls, were born of God. We are special because of our origin and nature. And that has absolutely nothing to do with human DNA or evolution or anything having to do with planet earth.
Made up bullshit. How would the hyptnotist know? Have some dead people come back to life? Or is he just bullshitting again? I say he is making the shit up for suckers.
You never answered why you used to say you were a christian. Then suddenly you weren't anymore. I guess you don't want to share that.
The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate.
When I look into the clear night sky I see mass (stars, planets, whatever) and wonder, how did this get here? When I try to look beyond the stars, I wonder, where does this end? I try to imagine what is beyond what I can see, and then what is beyond that, and what is beyond that! And I realize I am looking into infinity...and my brain bogs down. (Try it some time)
My brain can't deal with something that has no end because I am a finite creature trying to comprehend the infinite.
So my point is this: God is EVEN BIGGER than the infinite universe! He made the universe! Merely by speaking it into existence. Out of nothing.
So when the Bible says we are as nothing compared to God...we understand that we are indeed "as nothing". Dust.
The unsurpassed beauty of Christianity is that we know a God Who, although is All-powerful, All-knowing, Self-existent(Try to comprehend that), has condescended to not only dwell among us, but to actually serve us, and make a way for us to live with Him forever. That, Ping, is the love of God...
God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
Made up bullshit. How would the hyptnotist know? Have some dead people come back to life? Or is he just bullshitting again? I say he is making the shit up for suckers.
You never answered why you used to say you were a christian. Then suddenly you weren't anymore. I guess you don't want to share that.
Then my conversation with you is over. As I pointed out, you are not interested is listening to anything I have to say on this topic. I've answered your questions constructively but all you come back with is animosity.
Oh I listened. You dont answer questions though. You said no matter what you do even my extreme example you are still a good person according to the suggestor.
God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
I can empathize with much of what you say. But I don't see the connect with your final statement. Neither term, "God" or "The Source", can adequately describe all God is. And this conversation isn't about describing all that he is. It's about how life works. You subscribe to a theology written many thousands of years ago, ascribing some divine truthful authority for it. I, on the other hand, subscribe to a more basic & human explanation for Biblical origins.
You admit the universe is incomprehensibly large, and yet maintain it is comprehensibly young. I consider the universe both incomprehensibly large and incomprehensibly old. You insist biological life is too miraculous for any explanation other than divine creation to explain it. I say divine creation does not necessarily exclude utilizing evolution.
You suggest God is infinitely more than what we can imagine (true) and yet would create a system that would see so many perish for all eternity simply for not understanding or believing a certain theology. I ask why it is God would make understanding a theology, which is something serviced by the human mind, a condition to enjoying eternal life when even mortal parents would not approve of condemning their own kids to death for not understanding, say, basic mathematics.
But your final statement implies that you know me, and you really don't. You base the claim on my academic understanding. I think God is better than that. He really has to be, and the Newton model essentially removes limits on God that Biblical Christianity has in place. It works better in every way I can see.
If God condemns me for all eternity because of my theological understanding, then He'll condemn me for being an honest man. If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
I can tell you that there is no injustice whatsoever in God. If there were He would not be God. God is not capable of any wrong or imperfection. When He deals with mankind, including you, it is with perfect justice, perfect love, etc.
Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone.
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross.
You say I don't know you, true, but I know human nature. We are all pretty much the same. We all share the same fallen condition. We all need our Creator, to speak to us, to love us and accept us as we are, to restore us to beings that are fit for that eternal life for which we crave.
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in.
Okay, if that is the case, then even if the earth and universe were created just 6000 years ago, then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right?
Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone.
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right?
Right...if your mind is in complete rebellion to God and you wish to reach a conclusion based on a false assumption: that the age of the universe is calculated by the expansion rate of the universe, that the distance between stars, measured from "The Big Bang", tells you that the age of the universe HAS to be billions of years old.
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
It does not take much study or analysis to hear the gospel message, and realize you are indeed a sinner in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. Even a child can recognize that...can you Ping?
And this is the gospel...
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Okay, if that is the case, then even if the earth and universe were created just 6000 years ago, then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right?
More of that retarded tow opposite things can be true. I thought you were smarter than that.
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
This is a very weak argument that watchman is offering. This equate Christian belief with children being taught to believe in the fairy tales, Santa Claus and the Ishtar bunny. It makes of Christianity a non-rational belief system, one that can be sustained only by heavily indoctrinating children in it from an early age.
#109. To: watchman, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#103)
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross.
That is interesting.
If corrupt Eve hadn't tempted Adam to eat an apple from the one magical tree in all of creation that could instantly confer on the eater the ability to discern good from evil, primarily by revealing to the eater their own nakedness, it does lead to other questions.
If Eve ate the apple first, then she had to know she was naked. Why didn't she go hide her nakedness from Adam? Instead she boldly and cunningly approached him, trying to make him Fall as well. That bitch.
And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc.
And no one ever has explained why God, with his perfect foreknowledge of future events that leads to prophecies that come true, failed to foresee that the snake would tempt Eve and then use her as a Vessel Of Evil to cause Adam's fall. Why didn't God see this coming? Why didn't God protect his creation from Satan's plan to thwart God's entire plan of pure and innocent creation with a couple of apples, a snake and a weak woman? Why wasn't God omniscient back in the days of Eden? Why was God lacking in foreknowledge that Satan would attempt to destroy the very nature of God's creation?
#110. To: watchman, Liberator, Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#105)
Right...if your mind is in complete rebellion to God and you wish to reach a conclusion based on a false assumption: that the age of the universe is calculated by the expansion rate of the universe, that the distance between stars, measured from "The Big Bang", tells you that the age of the universe HAS to be billions of years old.
Hmm...so if God is manufacturing evidence for Big Bang (which has some theoretical problems itself), then isn't God the primary cause of people doubting the entire creation narrative? How can you blame Neil if he notices all this evidence of an old universe if God himself manufactured all that fake evidence to make the universe look old even though God supposedly only created the universe 6,000 years ago?
Some people like to claim that Big Bang or evolution are evil deceptions by the devil. But Satan did not ever have the power to create anything, like light arriving here from millions of years ago. Or is Satan also a time-traveling demon who can travel back in time to create these illusions of ancient light or is Satan perhaps empowered (by God) to manufacture such illusions currently and on an ongoing basis to deceive us. Satan was not a creator at all, only a rebel leader who wanted to spoil God's creation plan on earth.
It begins to appear that God may be the bigger deceiver, not Satan. Satan doesn't have the superpowers that some people wish to ascribe to him.
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
This is a very weak argument that watchman is offering.
As I mentioned to Pinguinite, you do not need to study and analyze the gospel in order to recognize it's immediate truth...and then believe.
Here's a passage from Acts where 3000 souls heard the gospel message and believed that SAME DAY... (no time to analyze here, was there?)
And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:40-42
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for highly intelligent people to come to faith in Christ...they trust their (fallen) intellect more than they trust God.
As for 'heavily indoctrinating' children, some do, with great damage being done to the child. Salvation cannot be forced on anyone...
As I mentioned to Pinguinite, you do not need to study and analyze the gospel in order to recognize it's immediate truth...and then believe.
I thought that the subject was creation, the Genesis creation account. Now you suddenly want to switch to a New Testament gospel to try to make your point.
Here's a passage from Acts where 3000 souls heard the gospel message and believed that SAME DAY... (no time to analyze here, was there?)
Which doesn't tell us anything about the fall of man, old/young Earth creationism, Adam & Eve, God's role in manufacturing evidence that undermines the Bible's account, etc.
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
You're just saying that you must set aside rationality entirely in order to believe. If that is the case, then mankind's intellectual capacity must be another of God's mistakes since it thwarts God's plan. But, wait, what exactly was God's plan anyway? He turned the snake loose on Eve which caused the Fall and, despite his perect omniscience and perfect foreknowledge, still allowed mankind to fall. Was it because Jesus was bored up in heaven and needed to have Adam fall so that four thousand years later Jesus could be incarnated and then suffer crucifixion to provide the perfect sacrifice to expiate mankind's sins before God, i.e. the sins which God's plan seems to have required man to suffer through Adam eating a special apple?
You really haven't done much to justify the entire system of belief or to rationalize it or explain the notable inconsistencies inherent to it.
This equate Christian belief with children being taught to believe in the fairy tales, Santa Claus and the Ishtar bunny. It makes of Christianity a non-rational belief system
That is my take as well. The moral seems to be that we should just believe (have faith) as a child would. That is, without question. But that is precisely what 1 billion Muslims have done, have they not? And these non-Christians will all burn in hell for eternity for doing exactly what people are expected to do in accepting Christianity?
Oh, but Christianity is the one true faith and Islam isn't. That seems to be what the retort comes to.
I've pointed out a few times that if there is a problem with faith when it comes to religion, it's not that we don't have enough, it's instead that we have too much. It is no coincidence that entire countries of many millions of people that are predominently of one religion remain that religion even after generations of people come and go, and that is true no matter what the religion is, whether it Chrisitianity, Islam, Hindu or whatever. Why? Because we, as people, are most apt to do exactly as watchman says we should do: Accept and believe as a child would. Children most often grow up into adults firmly believing whatever religion their parents taught them, no matter what it is.
If it were otherwise, we would see religious beliefs homogenously mixed throughout the world as everyone would question faith and migrate to the one that makes the most logical sense to them. But clearly, that is not what happens in the real world.
As I've said: The capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is greatly underappreciated. So in my book, we MUST apply some rational critique of any theological understanding of God and not simply accept what a religious institution says, what our parents say, or what an old book says.
As I see it, the Bible is a compilation of ancient writings that had the benefit of revisions and editing for poetic and literary enhancement as it was passed down verbally from parent to child until such time as it was codified Subsequent writings were done quite often with the author having the benefit of knowing what more ancient texts said, which could very often explain claims of fulfilled prophesy. Combine all that with our overcapacity to believe things, and you have a Christian religion that considers the Bible to be the Word of God.
Having said that, I will say that Christianity is a good faith, and in terms of how we are called to live, the Newton model is actually about 100% compatible with Christianity. So I believe there is a lot of theological truth in Christianity. The differences are only in doctrine of judgement, sin, reincarnation, redemption and items of that sort.
And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc.
Here's the kicker on this, as I see it. Cause here's the thing.
Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept. It actually predates Christianity itself, and is built in to Hinduism and Buddhism. It's even referenced, I believe, in the Bible as one of Paul's letters seems to discount reincarnation with a line about it being appointed to man "once to die" and after that, the judgment.
So in my musings, I've wondered why, if the Newton model is correct, it does not exist as a mainstream faith as the "big 5" do (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism). And the answer I come up with is because there is no mandate built into the Newton model that the belief be spread. Christianity has that in the form of a fear of eternal damnation, so believers are energized with the urgency of teaching others the faith. Can't speak for Islam but in at least some versions of it, if you don't believe you get your head chopped off so that's another energizing factor for the faith. With the Newton model, there is no such mandate to convince others of anything because their is no consequence for not believing the Newton model.
Ergo, I postulate that if Christianity did not include the doctrine of Jesus being the son of God, and the necessity of believing in sin being washed away by his blood shed on the cross with a final judgment.... then Christianity would not exist today because people thousands of years ago would not have had any drive to spread the gospel. Not to others, and not to their children.
Hmm...so if God is manufacturing evidence for Big Bang (which has some theoretical problems itself), then isn't God the primary cause of people doubting the entire creation narrative? How can you blame Neil if he notices all this evidence of an old universe if God himself manufactured all that fake evidence to make the universe look old even though God supposedly only created the universe 6,000 years ago?,
I would actually go farther and say that if God created the universe 6000 years ago to make it look like it's 13 billion years old, then it really IS 13 billion years old, and it's completely wrong to say it's only 6000 years old.
Keep in mind, God creates time too, not just space. At least according to Einstein, who found the 2 pretty much go hand in hand.
However, suggesting God would have fast forwarded universe creation instead of just waiting 13 billion years raises the question of why God would have not simply waited it out? Would we suggest that He couldn't bear the thought sitting around twiddling his thumbs for that long? Such suggestions largely ascribe human attributes to God (which is also done in the Bible, I contend, with descriptions of God as jealous and angry). I think those descriptions are done either naively or for the purpose of controlling the audience via imposition of fear of the almighty. (Politics and religion do mix, and often did, even in ancient times!)
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for highly intelligent people to come to faith in Christ...they trust their (fallen) intellect more than they trust God.
I counter this with what I've said that the capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is enormous, and it's enough to make one believe that God's spirit is at work is understanding. This phenomenon is partially known in the present day when it comes crime witnesses who falsely, though sincerely, identify innocent people as the criminal perps. Innocent people have gone to jail on sworn testimony that was later found to be flat out wrong. It's a psychological thing, and when time is involved, where the person memory of an event is replayed thousands of times in someone's head, memories can be distorted in dramatic ways. That is one theory behind the accusations against Kavinaugh by Ford of his having raped her 35 years prior. Maybe she lied criminally, and it was all fake, but it's also possible she was sincere in her claims but gravely mistaken as to who it was and where it happened. It's even possible it was a movie she saw which over times became her real past experience.
But in defense of Christianity, I will restate that a great deal of it is completely compatible with the Newton model, and according to the Newton model, we are all subconsciously aware of what the truth is. And those elements of the Bible and Christianity that are true would resonate in each of us as being true, and those resonations would be credited to Christianity, and may even be where you allude to the Spirit of God giving affirmation to us about Christianity.
Again, I consider Christianity to be a good faith. All the morals about how we are to live and treat others, embellishing virtues and such are spot on. The only real differences is in the abstract doctrines of sin, redemption and judgment. And according to the Newton model, it's not important if someone is wrong about that. (Obviously, the reverse is not true for Christianity, or at least your version of it).
Oh, but Christianity is the one true faith and Islam isn't. That seems to be what the retort comes to.
You should brace yourself but...the Muslims say the same damned thing about Christianity! Who knew?
I've pointed out a few times that if there is a problem with faith when it comes to religion, it's not that we don't have enough, it's instead that we have too much.
You have a point there. Religion is less often a problem for busy people. It's when people have decades of leisure time to browbeat everyone with their opinions or when a TV evangelist or imam sees an opportunity for fame and fortune in hawking ever-more-radical and extreme religious rhetoric and theology that you have the most problems.
As I've said: The capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is greatly underappreciated.
Not by the government or by libmedia. They rely on it as a foundation of their existence.
Having said that, I will say that Christianity is a good faith, and in terms of how we are called to live, the Newton model is actually about 100% compatible with Christianity.
I refrained from saying so but I think Newton would be rather shocked at these notions of him as some sort of theologian. He was a radical and only marginally Christian. There were far more doctrines in orthodox Christianity that Newton rejected than theology that he did believe and advocate for in the context of his scientific beliefs.
Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic.
By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him." He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."
Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair.
In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs." Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an anti-trinitarian.
In a minority position, T.C. Pfizenmaier offers a more nuanced view, arguing that Newton held closer to the Semi-Arian view of the Trinity that Jesus Christ was of a "similar substance" (homoiousios) from the Father rather than the orthodox view that Jesus Christ is of the "same substance" of the Father (homoousios) as endorsed by modern Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants. However, this type of view 'has lost support of late with the availability of Newton's theological papers', and now most scholars identify Newton as an Antitrinitarian monotheist.
Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
Along with his scientific fame, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John. He placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date.
He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity". He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities. For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion."
Newton's position was vigorously defended by his follower Samuel Clarke in a famous correspondence. A century later, Pierre-Simon Laplace's work "Celestial Mechanics" had a natural explanation for why the planet orbits do not require periodic divine intervention.
Scholars long debated whether Newton disputed the doctrine of the Trinity. His first biographer, Sir David Brewster, who compiled his manuscripts, interpreted Newton as questioning the veracity of some passages used to support the Trinity, but never denying the doctrine of the Trinity as such. In the twentieth century, encrypted manuscripts written by Newton and bought by John Maynard Keynes (among others) were deciphered and it became known that Newton did indeed reject Trinitarianism.
Newton was not a conventional orthodox Christian in any sense. So I can see why you might like him but not the others here. Newton was obviously a very original thinker, something that was not apparent for many years after his death. The religious establishment has also sought to conceal his true opinions, something rather instructive about the nature of concentrated official religious power. The same thing happened with the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, in particular the contents of the Jefferson bible. And Newton would likely have applauded the Jefferson bible, given what we know. I may post separately on the Jefferson bible and its history; it is very interesting and not widely known.
Returning to your point, Newton's model is indeed compatible with Christianity if by Christianity you do not mean the idea that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind.
So I believe there is a lot of theological truth in Christianity. The differences are only in doctrine of judgement, sin, reincarnation, redemption and items of that sort.
To Newton, there was no Trinity. And neither he nor anyone else has ever found the word "trinity" in the Bible. By any honest historical measure of Christian orthodoxy, Newton was a dire heretic and a radical.
Newton's disagreements with Leibniz and Spinoza can be simplistically reduced to the proposition that God must periodically rewind the celestial clocks to keep the planets in motion and the sun in its assigned position. Newton said God didn't need to do that. So Newton's views on science informed and really dominated his religious sentiments.
hehehe.... a long write up, and interesting account of Issac Newton. However, all of my references to Newton refer to Dr. Michael Newton who is a contemporary who utilized hypnosis as a therapeutic method, initially for common things like losing weight, quitting smoking and regression to childhood to recall traumatic events that were impacting complaining clients, but then discovered that clients sometimes recalled events from not just prior lives but from between lives that took place, alledgely, in the spiritual realm.
He went on to make past life and between life regression his specialty and wrote a few books on his findings. Michael Newton was initially an atheist but was, he claims, forced to adjust his beliefs because of what he found in his work. He went on to create an institute (The Newton Institute) for training therapeutic hypnotists in the art he had developed on his own for recalling past and between life events. He died just a couple years ago. My frequent searches show no substantive claims of fraud in anything he's done, other than armchair doubters.
I have found his work to be very objective and as scientific in approach as is possible in the field. He has not written things up in an emotional way, but rather very objective way, it seems, which does appeal to me and my way of thinking. He's not as well known as Dr. Brian Weiss who is in the exact same field and came to virtually 100% of all the same conclusions as Newton, and the same way via clients that presented past life recall. Weiss, however, is less scientific and objective in his work, and has far less focus on the between life stage which Newton has declared to be what our earthly life is centered around. All interesting stuff, in my view.
Isaac Newton was essentially right about those things, including the April 3, 33 AD date of the crucifixion. (On April 3, 33 AD, a Friday, the moon in the Levant rose in full eclipse - a "blood moon".
He was right that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father - at least during his life. Now Jesus is Lord of mankind, and at the end he will be the judge of all things. But Jesus, as the son, was not Father - both are divine.
That is how they are both "God" - both share divinity. One was fathered by the other.
This isn't really hard to see from the writings.
The degree of adamancy of the Trinitarian versus Arian fight is, and always was, excessively violent and un-Christian. Newton was right that this was the doctrine that set the Church on a decidedly bad path, for it was over the doctrine of the Trinity that the Church began carrying out executions in the 380s AD, and with that, tainted itself forevermore.
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
Context, my friend...
True -- "child-like faith" is a necessity. But then again, that doesn't also preclude Christians from kicking it up several notches as well; "study or analysis" of Scripture is exactly how Christian Bible Scholars and Christians have discerned Truth from Genesis-to-Revelation, inexorably reinforcing the foundations of Christian Faith.
Matthew 18:2-4
Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.…
I have the following questions and concerns for your soul, Ping. Your faith and fate for Eternity deserves one more deep dive:
(1) Michael Newton's definitive account of the Afterlife, and his "Life Between Lives" upper-echelon Spirit "mentoring" of the recently deceased spirit -- Absolutely Fact? OR Theory? Are you willing to stake your eternal soul on Newton's account as THE Truth?
(2) DID the kind of "study and analysis" conducted by Newton and his conclusion actually create the notion of exposing Christianity as lacking reason, logic, and documentation? In your opinion, does Michael Newton's own "study and analysis" surpass that of the Christian for our faith?? I assume you are well aware of the tremendous weight and testimony factual historical, prophecies and documentation provided in both the Old and New Testaments. (OR...do they seem to be from your perspective riddled with inaccuracies, impossibilities, and misunderstandings?)
(3) Given Dr. Newton's "credentials" as a clinical Psychologist/Hypnotist, why should one trust the account of Dr. Michael Newton as a prophet of sorts? Or accounts of his hypnotized subjects, who voluntarily surrendered their respective will to the Power-of-Suggestion while in a waking-sleep state consciousness?
(4) IS it possible... that while under hypnosis and state of spiritual surrender they may have allowed disembodied spirits to "take over the helm" and give false testimony about Past-Lives-Regression? (After all, it is this "testimony" and "documentation" on which you base your entire faith of the Afterlife, isn't it?)
(5) IS it possible....that the PLR accounts of these hypnotized subjects of Dr. Newton were lies? WAS it possible that they as well as Newton himself were posessed, guided and fully deceived? IS it possible... that demonic disembodied spirits created false "memories" and accounts, ergo a motive in promoting an alternative "Way, Truth, and Life"? (does this resemble the Tree of Knowledge temptation in Eden as well?)
Also worthy of consideration and introspection: Giving weight and reliance on the "study and analyses" of any "Science" to validate the spiritual realm which by most accounts lie outside of our physical realm.
If Newton's accounts are to be believed at face value, there are spiritual entities involved who bridge the two realms. That expressed message is: "God is a Liar. Scripture is a Lie. Heaven and Hell are lies. The reason for a Redeemer of Sins is a Lie. YOU alone control your own Judgement and Afterlife, not God."
Bottom Line:
Regarding Dr. Newton and his theory on what happens the moment one's soul transitions into the next realm, should folks place their faith AND fate of their Eternal Soul in such an "Authority" or Karmic System and "prophet" like Dr. Newton?
We are all given fair warning:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God. For many false prophets have gone out into the world."
#121. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13, watchman, A K A Stone, Liberator (#115)(Edited)
I would actually go farther and say that if God created the universe 6000 years ago to make it look like it's 13 billion years old, then it really IS 13 billion years old, and it's completely wrong to say it's only 6000 years old.
Maybe that's the key test for entering the Pearly Gates: if you insist the universe is 13 billion years old, despite all the pressure to conform to creationism that it is only 6,000 years old, then you get into heaven. Or vice versa.
Saint Peter: "To enter the Pearly Gates to eternal life and happiness, answer thou me this one question: How old is the universe?
[John Cleese will play the role of Saint Peter in the movie version.]
The bible does say that very few will get into heaven at all. "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way" and all that.
Keep in mind, God creates time too, not just space. At least according to Einstein, who found the 2 pretty much go hand in hand.
For God to be God, he must exist entirely outside the space/time continuum. Those are artifacts of God's creation and he is not subject to them. If he was, then he would be nothing more than another artifact of his own creation.
Anyway, I just posted that stuff as a sneaky pretext to return to the Jefferson Bible. I'll flag Vic because I think he'll find some of this rather familiar, given his notorious past as a redheaded red-blooded Red-Letter KJV-Only Mackerel-Snapping Roman Catholic. He is little devious and his personality traits are not dissimilar to Jefferson's. : )
This was the version of the Jefferson bible which was distributed to members of Congress from 1904 through the Fifties. It was not known to the general public. A longer version of it with some of the background info and Jefferson's own words to explain it can be found here: Jefferson Bible, expanded
It begins and ends with the following verses:
1Now it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2And this enrollment was the first which was made when Quirinius, was governor of Syria. 3And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city. 4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5To be enrolled with Mary his betrothed, being then with child.
. . .
62Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. 63There laid they Jesus, 64And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Notice there is no virgin birth and no resurrection in Jefferson's bible.
We should find more context for Jefferson and what he was trying to do with his bible.
In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson stated that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews", and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity". Jefferson explains that he does not have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish it.
Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, the predecessor to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. He described it in a letter to John Adams dated October 12, 1813:
In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.
Jefferson wrote that “The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus Himself are within the comprehension of a child". He explained these doctrines were such as were "professed & acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the 1st century". In a letter to Reverend Charles Clay, he described his results:
Probably you have heard me say I had taken the four Evangelists, had cut out from them every text they had recorded of the moral precepts of Jesus, and arranged them in a certain order; and although they appeared but as fragments, yet fragments of the most sublime edifice of morality which had ever been exhibited to man.
Jefferson never referred to his work as a Bible, and the full title of this 1804 version was The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, being Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians, Unembarrased [uncomplicated] with Matters of Fact or Faith beyond the Level of their Comprehensions.
Jefferson frequently expressed discontent with this earlier version. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth represents the fulfillment of his desire to produce a more carefully assembled edition.
Content
Using a razor and glue, Jefferson cut and pasted his arrangement of selected verses from the King James Version of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in chronological order—putting together excerpts from one text with those of another to create a single narrative. Thus he begins with Luke 2 and Luke 3, then follows with Mark 1 and Matthew 3. He provides a record of which verses he selected, and of the order he chose in his Table of the Texts from the Evangelists employed in this Narrative and of the order of their arrangement.
Consistent with his naturalistic outlook and intent, most supernatural events are not included in Jefferson's heavily edited compilation. Paul K. Conkin states that "For the teachings of Jesus he concentrated on his milder admonitions (the Sermon on the Mount) and his most memorable parables. What resulted is a reasonably coherent, but at places oddly truncated, biography. If necessary to exclude the miraculous, Jefferson would cut the text even in mid-verse." Historian Edwin Scott Gaustad explains, "If a moral lesson was embedded in a miracle, the lesson survived in Jeffersonian scripture, but the miracle did not. Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor, Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus' role as a great moral teacher, not as a shaman or faith healer."
Therefore, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth begins with an account of Jesus' birth without references to angels (at that time), genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from his collection.
No supernatural acts of Christ are included at all in this regard, while the few things of a supernatural nature include receiving of the Holy Spirit, angels, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, the Tribulation, the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, a future kingdom, and eternal life, Heaven, Hell and punishment in everlasting fire, the Devil, and the soldiers falling backwards to the ground in response to Jesus stating, "I am he."
Rejecting the resurrection of Jesus, the work ends with the words: "Now, in the place where He was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed." These words correspond to the ending of John 19 in the Bible.
Purpose
It is understood by some historians that Jefferson composed it for his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it. Gaustad states, "The retired President did not produce his small book to shock or offend a somnolent world; he composed it for himself, for his devotion, for his assurance, for a more restful sleep at nights and a more confident greeting of the mornings."
There is no record of this or its successor being for "the Use of the Indians", despite the stated intent of the 1804 version being that purpose. Although the government long supported Christian activity among Indians, and in Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson supported "a perpetual mission among the Indian tribes", at least in the interest of anthropology, and as President sanctioned financial support for a priest and church for the Kaskaskia Indians, Jefferson did not make these works public. Instead, he acknowledged the existence of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth to only a few friends, saying that he read it before retiring at night, as he found this project intensely personal and private.
Ainsworth Rand Spofford, Librarian of Congress (1864–1894) stated: "His original idea was to have the life and teachings of the Saviour, told in similar excerpts, prepared for the Indians, thinking this simple form would suit them best. But, abandoning this, the formal execution of his plan took the shape above described, which was for his individual use. He used the four languages that he might have the texts in them side by side, convenient for comparison. In the book he pasted a map of the ancient world and the Holy Land, with which he studied the New Testament."
Some speculate that the reference to "Indians" in the 1804 title may have been an allusion to Jefferson's Federalist opponents, as he likewise used this indirect tactic against them at least once before, that being in his second inaugural address. Or that he was providing himself a cover story in case this work became public.
Also referring to the 1804 version, Jefferson wrote, "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."
Jefferson's claim to be a Christian was made in response to those who accused him of being otherwise, due to his unorthodox view of the Bible and conception of Christ. Recognizing his rather unusual views, Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
Publication history
After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime.
The most complete form Jefferson produced was inherited by his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, and was acquired in 1895 by the National Museum in Washington.[36] The book was later published as a lithographic reproduction by an act of the United States Congress in 1904. Beginning in 1904 and continuing every other year until the 1950s, new members of Congress were given a copy of the Jefferson Bible. Until the practice first stopped, copies were provided by the Government Printing Office. A private organization, the Libertarian Press, revived the practice in 1997. . . .
Notice that Jefferson's bible was given to every member of Congress quietly for the first half of the 20th century. The general public only became aware of the Jefferson bible about 20 years ago; it was among those historical matters reserved for college-educated men, not for the perusal of the hoi-polloi of the public schools who were not even told that it existed.
Nerd Alert!
It is said that Jefferson destroyed at least two KJV bibles to produce his own version and I noticed that these were not 1611 Authorized versions (old bibles) but ones that were new enough that they had two different letters for 's' and 'f' which were the same letter in the original Authorized Version. It also uses the letter 'u' which had previously been written as 'v'. One might conclude that Jefferson used the 1769 version of the KJV bible to create his own. But did he? I know that is a burning question in everyone's minds. LOL
However, there were multiple versions of the KJV produced in the 1760s. The 1760 Cambridge edition, the 1763 Baskerville edition, and the 1769 edition. A key difference from the 1760 edition so popular in Britain and the even more popular 1769 edition that was so widely used in Britain and America is the rendering of Matthew 5:13 (chapter 6 verse 13 of Jefferson's bible). Let's compare the KJV versions of the 1760s to find out which one Jefferson cut to pieces.
1760 Cambridge
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be troden under foot of men."
1769 edition
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Jefferson's text ???
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."
I conclude that Jefferson was likely using the now-rare 1763 Baskerville edition, said to be quite a beautiful folio version, to create his KJV pages. Baskerville was an innovative printer and designer of his own typefaces, a colleague of and greatly admired by Ben Franklin. Typographically and in word rendering choice, Jefferson's KJV is halfway between the 1760 and the 1769 versions so Baskerville's is the only likely candidate.
How's that for some really pointless bibliographic minutiae? I haven't been able to locate an online copy of the 1763 Baskerville edition to verify this however. The only search results I get are for sales of that bible as a rare book in the range of $25,000-$40,000. And you can see the annotations and razor marks of just how Jefferson chopped words and pasted them together. And you can read the whole thing in only an hour or so. And Vic can even choose to read the passages in Latin, French or (1763?) KJV English. Even Jefferson's map choices are interesting.
There is endless detail to pore over. Notice how the page before his title page contains a reverse image. Jefferson wrote it quickly in his bad penmanship and flipped the page while the ink was still wet which transferred some of the title page's ink to the preceding blank page, producing a limned mirror image of the title page. Charming.
And without further ado, here is the full Jefferson Bible in full:
Jefferson's views on Jesus and the Bible were mixed, but were progressively far from what was and is largely considered orthodox in Christianity. Jefferson stated in a letter in 1819, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he wrote to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man".
On one hand Jefferson affirmed, "We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses," that he was "sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others," and that "the doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man." However, Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. In a letter to William Short in 1820, Jefferson described many biblical passages as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". In the same letter Jefferson states he describes Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus".
Jefferson also denied the divine inspiration of the Book of Revelation, describing it to Alexander Smyth in 1825 as "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams". From his study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God.
In 1803 Jefferson composed a "Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus" of the comparative merits of Christianity, after having read the pamphlet "Socrates and Jesus Compared" by the Unitarian minister Dr. Joseph Priestley. In this brief work Jefferson affirms Jesus' "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," but asserts that "fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible" and that "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." He let only a few see it, including Benjamin Rush in 1803 and William Short in 1820. When Rush died in 1813, Jefferson asked the family to return the document to him.
In 1804, Jefferson began piecing together his own version of the Gospels from which he omitted the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity, and the resurrection of Jesus – among many other teachings and events. He retained primarily Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved, and also included the Second Coming, a future judgment, Heaven, Hell, and a few other supernatural events. This compilation was completed about 1820, but Jefferson did not make these works public, acknowledging "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" existence only to a few friends. This work was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.
Anti-clericalism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Calvinism
While Jefferson did indeed include some Protestant clergymen as amongst his friends, and while he did in fact donate monies in support of some churches, his attitude towards Protestant clerics as a group and the Roman Catholic Church as a whole was one of extreme aversion. Jefferson's residence in France just before the French Revolution left him deeply suspicious of Catholic priests and bishops, considering them a force for reaction and ignorance. His later private letters indicated he was skeptical of too much interference by Catholic clergy in matters of civil government. He wrote in letters: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government" and "[i]n every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
In 1817 he wrote to John Adams:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, Materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.
In an 1820 letter to William Short, Jefferson wrote, "[T]he serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous."
Jefferson intensely opposed Calvinism. He never ceased to denounce the "blasphemous absurdity of the five points of Calvin," writing three years before his death to John Adams, "His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."
Priestley and Unitarianism
Jefferson expressed general agreement with Unitarianism, which, like Deism, rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Jefferson never joined a Unitarian church, but he did attend Unitarian services while in Philadelphia. His friend Joseph Priestley was the minister. Jefferson corresponded on religious matters with numerous Unitarians, among them Jared Sparks (Unitarian minister, historian and president of Harvard), Thomas Cooper, Benjamin Waterhouse and John Adams. In an 1822 letter to Benjamin Waterhouse he wrote, "I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."
Jefferson named the teachings of both Joseph Priestley and Conyers Middleton (an English clergyman who questioned miracles and revelation, emphasizing Christianity's role as a mainstay of social order) as the basis for his own faith. He became friends with Priestley, who lived in Philadelphia. In a letter to John Adams dated August 22, 1813, Jefferson wrote,
You are right in supposing, in one of yours, that I had not read much of Priestley's Predestination, his no-soul system, or his controversy with Horsley. But I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and Early Opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them, and on Middleton's writings, especially his Letters from Rome, and To Waterland, as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never been answered, nor can be answered by quoting historical proofs, as they have done. For these facts, therefore, I cling to their learning, so much superior to my own.
Jefferson continued to express his strong objections to the doctrines of the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity. In a letter to Adams (April 11, 1823), Jefferson wrote, "And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
In an 1821 letter he wrote:
No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its Founder an impostor. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. ... I have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also.
Jefferson once wrote to the minister of the First Parish Church (Unitarian) in Portland, Maine, asking for services for him and a small group of friends. The church responded that it did not have clergy to send to the South. In an 1825 letter to Waterhouse, Jefferson wrote,
I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, altho I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated.
When followers of Richard Price and Priestley began debating over the existence of free-will and the soul (Priestley had taken the materialist position), Jefferson expressed reservations that Unitarians were finding it important to dispute doctrine with one another. In 1822 he held the Quakers up as an example for them to emulate.
In Jefferson's time, Unitarianism was generally considered a branch of Christianity. Originally it questioned the doctrine of the Trinity and the pre-existence of Christ. During the period 1800–1850, Unitarianism began also to question the existence of miracles, the inspiration of Scripture, and the virgin birth, though not yet the resurrection of Jesus. Contemporary Unitarianism no longer implies belief in a deity; some Unitarians are theists and some are not. Modern Unitarians consider Jefferson both a kindred spirit and an important figure in their history. The Famous UUs website says:
Like many others of his time (he died just one year after the founding of institutional Unitarianism in America), Jefferson was a Unitarian in theology, though not in church membership. He never joined a Unitarian congregation: there were none near his home in Virginia during his lifetime. He regularly attended Joseph Priestley's Pennsylvania church when he was nearby, and said that Priestley's theology was his own, and there is no doubt Priestley should be identified as Unitarian. Jefferson remained a member of the Episcopal congregation near his home, but removed himself from those available to become godparents, because he was not sufficiently in agreement with the Trinitarian theology. His work, the Jefferson Bible, was Unitarian in theology ...
[I know, after a post this long, I never get to complain about long posts again. This is likely among the most complex HTML posts ever seen on LF, something I would never have attempted without my macro utility and my programmer's text editor with regex search-replace.]
